In the United States v. Frankfort Distilleries, Inc., 1944 case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a matter related to antitrust law and price discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936. The defendant, Frankfort Distilleries was accused by the government of selling whiskey at different prices to various wholesalers in violation of this act. However, Frankfort argued that their actions were justified as they were merely meeting competition from other distillers who also offered lower prices to certain customers. The court held that if a seller can prove his price reductions are made in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor then it would not be considered as violating anti-discrimination laws even if it results in discriminating among its own customers.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Frankfort Distilleries, Inc., case argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of antitrust law and could potentially lead to unjust results. The dissenters contended that there was no evidence showing any intent or actual effect of monopolization by Frankfort Distilleries, which is necessary for an antitrust violation. They further pointed out that price fixing agreements are not inherently illegal unless they have been used as a tool to create or maintain monopoly power. In this case, according to them, such use had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, they believed it was inappropriate for the court to find Frankfort guilty based on mere participation in price-fixing activities without clear proof of harmful effects on competition.