In the case of Texaco Inc. v. Ricky Hasbrouck, DBA Rick's Texaco, et al., 1989, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute between Texaco and several of its gas station franchisees in Idaho. The franchisees alleged that they were charged higher prices for gasoline than other franchised dealers outside their competitive market area which was against the law under Idaho’s state Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA). They claimed this constituted price discrimination and sought damages from Texaco. The court ruled in favor of the franchisees stating that federal law did not preempt state laws on petroleum pricing practices unless there is clear evidence to suggest otherwise. In this instance, it found no such evidence indicating Congress intended PMPA to supersede state laws like those in Idaho addressing retail marketing conditions or prohibiting discriminatory pricing among franchises within same brand. This ruling upheld states' rights to enforce their own fair trade laws regarding petroleum products without interference from federal legislation unless explicitly stated by Congress.

In the dissenting opinion for Texaco Inc. v. Ricky Hasbrouck, et al., Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and failed to adequately protect small businesses from predatory pricing practices by larger corporations. He contended that Texaco's volume discount program effectively allowed it to price discriminate against smaller retailers like Hasbrouck, which could not purchase fuel in large enough quantities to qualify for discounts. This, he believed, constituted a violation of antitrust laws designed to promote competition and prevent monopolistic behavior. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for ignoring evidence suggesting that Texaco had intentionally used its discount program as a weapon against smaller competitors rather than simply as a means of reducing costs or rewarding loyal customers.