In the case of Falls City Industries, Inc. v. Vanco Beverage, Inc., 1982, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving beer pricing and anti-discrimination laws in Indiana. Falls City Industries was accused by Vanco Beverage of violating an Indiana statute that prohibited brewers from discriminating in price between different wholesalers purchasing their products within the state. The court had to determine whether this law conflicted with federal antitrust laws which generally encourage competitive pricing practices. The Supreme Court held that while states have power to regulate alcohol under the 21st Amendment, they must still comply with other constitutional provisions such as commerce clause or equal protection clause when doing so; hence it does not exempt them from scrutiny under federal antitrust laws. However, in this particular case it found no conflict between state and federal law because both aimed at preventing discriminatory practices - albeit through different means (price uniformity vs competition). Therefore it upheld application of Indiana's beer-pricing statute against Falls City.

In the dissenting opinion for Falls City Industries, Inc. v. Vanco Beverage, Inc., Justice Powell argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous court rulings and misinterpreted the Sherman Act. He contended that there was no evidence of anticompetitive conduct by Falls City Industries as they did not possess market power or engage in predatory pricing to drive out competitors. Instead, he believed their volume discount program was a legitimate business strategy aimed at increasing efficiency and competitiveness within an intensely competitive beer industry rather than creating a monopoly or restraining trade unfairly. Furthermore, he criticized the majority’s reliance on perceived potential harm instead of actual adverse effects on competition as required under existing precedent.