In Fisher et al. v. City of Berkeley, California et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that local rent control ordinances do not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act because they are state actions immune from federal antitrust laws. The case was initiated by landlords who challenged a city ordinance limiting rent increases for certain residential properties in Berkeley, California. They argued that it constituted price fixing and thus violated federal antitrust law. However, the court held that even if such an ordinance has an anti-competitive effect, it does not conflict with the Sherman Act as long as it is clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy which actively supervised by the state itself.

In the dissenting opinion for Fisher et al. v. City of Berkeley, California, et al., Justice Powell argued that the majority's decision to uphold Berkeley's rent control ordinance was inconsistent with previous Supreme Court rulings on price controls and economic regulation. He contended that while states have broad power to regulate local economies under their police powers, such regulations must still meet constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection. In his view, Berkeley’s rent control law failed this test because it did not reasonably relate to a legitimate public purpose but instead benefited a particular class at the expense of others without sufficient justification or rational basis in policy considerations. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for failing to properly apply antitrust laws by exempting municipal actions from scrutiny even when they substantially affect interstate commerce.