In the case of United States v. Armour & Co., et al., 1969, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a consent decree in an antitrust suit could be modified by one party without the other's agreement. The court ruled that it could not be unilaterally altered unless there were changes in facts or law rendering compliance substantially more onerous, unforeseen obstacles to enforcement had arisen, or enforcement would be detrimental to public interest. The government argued that Armour and several other meat packers violated provisions of a previous consent decree which prohibited them from engaging in retail grocery operations. However, since these activities were permitted under another section of the same decree and because no significant change occurred warranting modification, the court held that they did not violate its terms.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Armour & Co. case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a consent decree between the government and several meatpacking companies was flawed because it did not adequately protect competition or serve public interest. The dissenters believed that this ruling would allow these large corporations to maintain their dominance over smaller competitors, thereby stifering competition and harming consumers through higher prices and less choice. They also criticized the court for failing to properly scrutinize whether such agreements were truly beneficial for society as a whole, arguing that courts should play an active role in ensuring antitrust laws are enforced effectively rather than deferring too much power to administrative agencies or private parties involved in crafting these settlements.