In the case of Schwegmann Brothers v. Calvert Distillers Corp., the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Schwegmann Brothers, a Louisiana grocery chain that had been sued by Calvert Distillers for selling their products below the minimum price set by state law. The court held that such "fair trade" laws were not applicable to non-signatories and thus did not violate federal antitrust laws. This decision was based on an interpretation of the Miller-Tydings Act, which allowed manufacturers to establish minimum retail prices for their goods with consenting retailers but did not explicitly extend this right to non-consenting parties. Therefore, it was determined that Schwegmann Brothers' discounting practices were legal as they had never agreed to adhere to Calvert's pricing policies.

In the dissenting opinion for Schwegmann Brothers v. Calvert Distillers Corp., Justice Frankfurter argued that the Sherman Act should not be interpreted to prohibit all restraints on trade, but rather only those which are unreasonable or anticompetitive in nature. He contended that fair-trade laws, such as Louisiana's Retail Price Maintenance Act under consideration in this case, were enacted by states specifically to prevent destructive price-cutting and stabilize markets. Therefore, they did not constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade and should not be considered a violation of federal antitrust law. Furthermore, he asserted that it was inappropriate for the Supreme Court to invalidate state legislation based solely on its interpretation of federal statutes without clear evidence from Congress indicating its intent to preempt such state laws.