In the case of Federal Trade Commission v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association et al., 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that a group of lawyers who refused to represent indigent defendants until their fees were increased had violated antitrust laws. The Washington D.C.-based lawyers argued they were protesting inadequate compensation rates for representing poor clients and claimed their boycott was protected by the First Amendment right to petition government for redress of grievances. However, in a 5-3 decision, the court held that while political activity is fully protected by the First Amendment, economic activity has only limited protection. Therefore, even if motivated by public service goals or intent on influencing governmental action, such collective refusal to work constituted illegal price-fixing under federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for Federal Trade Commission v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision failed to recognize a crucial distinction between political and economic activity. He contended that lawyers who boycotted court-appointed cases were not engaging in price-fixing but rather protesting inadequate compensation rates set by the government - an act of political expression protected under the First Amendment. Furthermore, he criticized the application of antitrust laws to this case as inappropriate since these laws are designed to regulate commercial competition in private markets, not public sector activities such as legal representation for indigent defendants. In his view, punishing attorneys for demanding fair pay could deter other professionals from providing essential services to disadvantaged populations out of fear they too might be accused of violating antitrust regulations.