The U.S. Supreme Court case Times-Picayune Publishing Co. et al. v. United States in 1952 revolved around the issue of whether a newspaper company violated antitrust laws by requiring advertisers to place ads in both its morning and evening publications, a practice known as "tying arrangements". The Times-Picayune Publishing Company, which owned two major newspapers in New Orleans - one published in the morning and another at night - had implemented this policy for their advertising space sales. The government argued that this was an illegal restraint on trade under the Sherman Antitrust Act because it forced advertisers to purchase unwanted ad space just to get access to desired slots. However, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Times-Picayune Publishing Co., stating that while tying arrangements can be unlawful if they foreclose competition or create monopolies, there was no evidence showing such effects here since other competitive media outlets were available for advertising within New Orleans market area where these newspapers circulated.

In the dissenting opinion for TIMES-PICAYUNE PUBLISHING CO. ET AL. v. UNITED STATES, Justice Robert H. Jackson disagreed with the majority's decision that Times-Picayune Publishing Co.'s use of "all-or-none" contracts constituted a violation of antitrust laws under the Sherman Act. He argued that these contracts were not inherently anti-competitive and did not monopolize trade in New Orleans as they only applied to advertisers who chose to advertise in both morning and evening editions of their newspaper, which was a small fraction of total advertisers in the city. Furthermore, he contended that there was no evidence showing any adverse effects on competition or consumer welfare due to these contracts; instead, it allowed them to offer lower advertising rates by spreading costs over larger volumes thereby benefiting consumers indirectly through reduced prices for goods advertised.