In the United States v. Griffith et al., 1947, the Supreme Court ruled that a movie theater chain's practice of block booking and blind selling violated antitrust laws. The defendants, Griffith Amusement Co., operated a chain of theaters in Texas and Oklahoma and had exclusive dealing arrangements with film distributors where they would lease films for all their theaters without knowing anything about them (blind selling) or lease multiple films at once (block booking). These practices were deemed to restrict competition as it prevented independent theaters from accessing popular movies unless they also agreed to show less desirable ones. The court held that these practices constituted an unreasonable restraint on trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act because it reduced competition among both distributors and exhibitors, thereby harming consumers by limiting their choices.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Griffith et al., Justice Jackson disagreed with the majority's decision to apply antitrust laws to a movie theater chain that had not engaged in any explicit anti-competitive behavior. He argued that the Sherman Act was intended to prevent businesses from engaging in unfair practices, such as price-fixing or market division, which were not present in this case. Instead, he believed that Griffith and his associates were simply taking advantage of their business acumen and foresight by buying up theaters when they were cheap during the Great Depression and then reaping profits when conditions improved. According to Justice Jackson, punishing them for this would be akin to penalizing success itself rather than preventing monopolistic practices.