In the United States v. General Dynamics Corp. et al., 1986, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of General Dynamics and other defense contractors who were accused by the government of colluding to fix prices on military contracts during the Vietnam War era. The government alleged that these companies had violated antitrust laws by conspiring to rig bids for billions of dollars' worth of Pentagon contracts for fighter aircrafts between 1958 and 1963. However, due to a lack of direct evidence supporting this claim, as well as an argument from defendants stating that they were merely following common industry practices at a time when there was only one buyer (the U.S Government) in their market, which made competition irrelevant; Justice Byron White delivered an opinion siding with defendants. He stated that without proof showing actual harm or potential threat to competition caused by such actions, no violation could be established under Sherman Act's Section 1 - thus overturning lower court’s decision against them.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. General Dynamics Corp., it was argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the case on grounds of insufficient evidence was incorrect. The dissenters believed that there was enough evidence presented by the government to prove a violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which prohibits mergers and acquisitions where their effect may be substantially lessening competition or tending towards monopoly in any line of commerce. They contended that this merger would indeed reduce competition in an already highly concentrated market, leading to potential harm for consumers through higher prices or reduced quality and innovation. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation and application of legal standards regarding future market conditions and competitive capabilities as defenses against antitrust violations.