(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2006 1 

Syllabus 

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is

being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been

prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. 

See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v. 

PSKS, INC., DBA KAY’S KLOSET . . . KAY’S SHOES 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 

THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

No. 06–480. Argued March 26, 2007—Decided June 28, 2007 

Given its policy of refusing to sell to retailers that discount its goods 

below suggested prices, petitioner (Leegin) stopped selling to respondent’s (PSKS) store. PSKS filed suit, alleging, inter alia, that Leegin

violated the antitrust laws by entering into vertical agreements with

its retailers to set minimum resale prices. The District Court excluded expert testimony about Leegin’s pricing policy’s procompetitive effects on the ground that Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park 

& Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373, makes it per se illegal under §1 of the 

Sherman Act for a manufacturer and its distributor to agree on the 

minimum price the distributor can charge for the manufacturer’s 

goods. At trial, PSKS alleged that Leegin and its retailers had

agreed to fix prices, but Leegin argued that its pricing policy was lawful under §1. The jury found for PSKS. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit

declined to apply the rule of reason to Leegin’s vertical price-fixing 

agreements and affirmed, finding that Dr. Miles’ per se rule rendered 

irrelevant any procompetitive justifications for Leegin’s policy. 

Held: Dr. Miles is overruled and vertical price restraints are to be 

judged by the rule of reason. Pp. 5–28.

(a) The accepted standard for testing whether a practice restrains

trade in violation of §1 is the rule of reason, which requires the factfinder to weigh “all of the circumstances,” Continental T. V., Inc. v. 

GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U. S. 36, 49, including “specific information

about the relevant business” and “the restraint’s history, nature, and 

effect,” State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U. S. 3, 10. The rule distinguishes

between restraints with anticompetitive effect that are harmful to

the consumer and those with procompetitive effect that are in the

consumer’s best interest. However, when a restraint is deemed 
2 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v.

 PSKS, INC. 

Syllabus 

“unlawful per se,” ibid., the need to study an individual restraint’s

reasonableness in light of real market forces is eliminated, Business 

Electronics Corp. v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 485 U. S. 717, 723. Resort to per se rules is confined to restraints “that would always or almost always tend to restrict competition and decrease output.” Ibid. 

Thus, a per se rule is appropriate only after courts have had considerable experience with the type of restraint at issue, see Broadcast 

Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 441 U. S. 1, 9, and 

only if they can predict with confidence that the restraint would be

invalidated in all or almost all instances under the rule of reason, see 

Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Soc., 457 U. S. 332, 344. Pp. 5– 

7. 

(b) Because the reasons upon which Dr. Miles relied do not justify a 

per se rule, it is necessary to examine, in the first instance, the economic effects of vertical agreements to fix minimum resale prices and 

to determine whether the per se rule is nonetheless appropriate.

Were this Court considering the issue as an original matter, the rule

of reason, not a per se rule of unlawfulness, would be the appropriate 

standard to judge vertical price restraints. Pp. 7–19.

(1) Economics literature is replete with procompetitive justifications for a manufacturer’s use of resale price maintenance, and the 

few recent studies on the subject also cast doubt on the conclusion

that the practice meets the criteria for a per se rule. The justifications for vertical price restraints are similar to those for other vertical restraints. Minimum resale price maintenance can stimulate interbrand competition among manufacturers selling different brands 

of the same type of product by reducing intrabrand competition

among retailers selling the same brand. This is important because

the antitrust laws’ “primary purpose . . . is to protect interbrand 

competition,” Khan, supra, at 15. A single manufacturer’s use of vertical price restraints tends to eliminate intrabrand price competition;

this in turn encourages retailers to invest in services or promotional 

efforts that aid the manufacturer’s position as against rival manufacturers. Resale price maintenance may also give consumers more options to choose among low-price, low-service brands; high-price, highservice brands; and brands falling in between. Absent vertical price

restraints, retail services that enhance interbrand competition might 

be underprovided because discounting retailers can free ride on retailers who furnish services and then capture some of the demand 

those services generate. Retail price maintenance can also increase

interbrand competition by facilitating market entry for new firms

and brands and by encouraging retailer services that would not be

provided even absent free riding. Pp. 9–12.

(2) Setting minimum resale prices may also have anticompetitive 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 3 

Syllabus 

effects; and unlawful price fixing, designed solely to obtain monopoly

profits, is an ever present temptation. Resale price maintenance

may, for example, facilitate a manufacturer cartel or be used to organize retail cartels. It can also be abused by a powerful manufacturer or retailer. Thus, the potential anticompetitive consequences of 

vertical price restraints must not be ignored or underestimated. 

Pp. 12–14. 

(3) Notwithstanding the risks of unlawful conduct, it cannot be

stated with any degree of confidence that retail price maintenance 

“always or almost always tend[s] to restrict competition and decrease

output,” Business Electronics, supra, at 723. Vertical retail-price

agreements have either procompetitive or anticompetitive effects, depending on the circumstances in which they were formed; and the 

limited empirical evidence available does not suggest efficient uses of 

the agreements are infrequent or hypothetical. A per se rule should 

not be adopted for administrative convenience alone. Such rules can 

be counterproductive, increasing the antitrust system’s total cost by

prohibiting procompetitive conduct the antitrust laws should encourage. And a per se rule cannot be justified by the possibility of higher

prices absent a further showing of anticompetitive conduct. The antitrust laws primarily are designed to protect interbrand competition

from which lower prices can later result. Respondent’s argument

overlooks that, in general, the interests of manufacturers and consumers are aligned with respect to retailer profit margins. Resale 

price maintenance has economic dangers. If the rule of reason were 

to apply, courts would have to be diligent in eliminating their anticompetitive uses from the market. Factors relevant to the inquiry 

are the number of manufacturers using the practice, the restraint’s 

source, and a manufacturer’s market power. The rule of reason is designed and used to ascertain whether transactions are anticompetitive or procompetitive. This standard principle applies to vertical 

price restraints. As courts gain experience with these restraints by

applying the rule of reason over the course of decisions, they can establish the litigation structure to ensure the rule operates to eliminate anticompetitive restraints from the market and to provide more

guidance to businesses. Pp. 14–19. 

(c) Stare decisis does not compel continued adherence to the per se

rule here. Because the Sherman Act is treated as a common-law 

statute, its prohibition on “restraint[s] of trade” evolves to meet the

dynamics of present economic conditions. The rule of reason’s caseby-case adjudication implements this common-law approach. Here, 

respected economics authorities suggest that the per se rule is inappropriate. And both the Department of Justice and the Federal 

Trade Commission recommend replacing the per se rule with the rule 
4 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v.

 PSKS, INC. 

Syllabus 

of reason. In addition, this Court has “overruled [its] precedents 

when subsequent cases have undermined their doctrinal underpinnings.” Dickerson v. United States, 530 U. S. 428, 443. It is not surprising that the Court has distanced itself from Dr. Miles’ rationales, 

for the case was decided not long after the Sherman Act was enacted,

when the Court had little experience with antitrust analysis. Only 

eight years after Dr. Miles, the Court reined in the decision, holding

that a manufacturer can suggest resale prices and refuse to deal with

distributors who do not follow them, United States v. Colgate & Co., 

250 U. S. 300, 307–308; and more recently the Court has tempered,

limited, or overruled once strict vertical restraint prohibitions, see, 

e.g., GTE Sylvania, supra, at 57–59. The Dr. Miles rule is also inconsistent with a principled framework, for it makes little economic

sense when analyzed with the Court’s other vertical restraint cases.

Deciding that procompetitive effects of resale price maintenance are 

insufficient to overrule Dr. Miles would call into question cases such 

as Colgate and GTE Sylvania. Respondent’s arguments for reaffirming Dr. Miles based on stare decisis do not require a different result. 

Pp. 19–28. 

171 Fed. Appx. 464, reversed and remanded. 

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, 

C. J., and SCALIA, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a 

dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., 

joined. 
_________________ 

_________________ 

Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to

notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order

that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

No. 06–480 

LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC., 

PETITIONER v. PSKS, INC., DBA KAY’S 

KLOSET . . . KAY’S SHOES 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

[June 28, 2007] 

JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court. 

In Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 

220 U. S. 373 (1911), the Court established the rule that it

is per se illegal under §1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. 

§1, for a manufacturer to agree with its distributor to set

the minimum price the distributor can charge for the 

manufacturer’s goods. The question presented by the 

instant case is whether the Court should overrule the per 

se rule and allow resale price maintenance agreements to 

be judged by the rule of reason, the usual standard applied 

to determine if there is a violation of §1. The Court has 

abandoned the rule of per se illegality for other vertical

restraints a manufacturer imposes on its distributors. 

Respected economic analysts, furthermore, conclude that 

vertical price restraints can have procompetitive effects. 

We now hold that Dr. Miles should be overruled and that 

vertical price restraints are to be judged by the rule of 

reason. 

I 

Petitioner, Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. 
2 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v.

 PSKS, INC. 

Opinion of the Court

(Leegin), designs, manufactures, and distributes leather 

goods and accessories. In 1991, Leegin began to sell belts

under the brand name “Brighton.” The Brighton brand 

has now expanded into a variety of women’s fashion accessories. It is sold across the United States in over 5,000 

retail establishments, for the most part independent, 

small boutiques and specialty stores. Leegin’s president,

Jerry Kohl, also has an interest in about 70 stores that sell 

Brighton products. Leegin asserts that, at least for its

products, small retailers treat customers better, provide 

customers more services, and make their shopping experience more satisfactory than do larger, often impersonal

retailers. Kohl explained: “[W]e want the consumers to 

get a different experience than they get in Sam’s Club or 

in Wal-Mart. And you can’t get that kind of experience or

support or customer service from a store like Wal-Mart.” 5 

Record 127. 

Respondent, PSKS, Inc. (PSKS), operates Kay’s Kloset, 

a women’s apparel store in Lewisville, Texas. Kay’s Kloset 

buys from about 75 different manufacturers and at one 

time sold the Brighton brand. It first started purchasing

Brighton goods from Leegin in 1995. Once it began selling 

the brand, the store promoted Brighton. For example, it

ran Brighton advertisements and had Brighton days in 

the store. Kay’s Kloset became the destination retailer in

the area to buy Brighton products. Brighton was the

store’s most important brand and once accounted for 40 to

50 percent of its profits.

In 1997, Leegin instituted the “Brighton Retail Pricing 

and Promotion Policy.” 4 id., at 939. Following the policy, 

Leegin refused to sell to retailers that discounted Brighton

goods below suggested prices. The policy contained an

exception for products not selling well that the retailer did 

not plan on reordering. In the letter to retailers establishing the policy, Leegin stated: 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 3 

Opinion of the Court 

“In this age of mega stores like Macy’s, Bloomingdales, May Co. and others, consumers are perplexed

by promises of product quality and support of product 

which we believe is lacking in these large stores. 

Consumers are further confused by the ever popular

sale, sale, sale, etc. 

“We, at Leegin, choose to break away from the pack 

by selling [at] specialty stores; specialty stores that 

can offer the customer great quality merchandise, superb service, and support the Brighton product 365 

days a year on a consistent basis. 

“We realize that half the equation is Leegin producing great Brighton product and the other half is you,

our retailer, creating great looking stores selling our

products in a quality manner.” Ibid. 

Leegin adopted the policy to give its retailers sufficient

margins to provide customers the service central to its 

distribution strategy. It also expressed concern that discounting harmed Brighton’s brand image and reputation. 

A year after instituting the pricing policy Leegin introduced a marketing strategy known as the “Heart Store 

Program.” See id., at 962–972. It offered retailers incentives to become Heart Stores, and, in exchange, retailers 

pledged, among other things, to sell at Leegin’s suggested 

prices. Kay’s Kloset became a Heart Store soon after 

Leegin created the program. After a Leegin employee

visited the store and found it unattractive, the parties 

appear to have agreed that Kay’s Kloset would not be a

Heart Store beyond 1998. Despite losing this status, Kay’s

Kloset continued to increase its Brighton sales.

In December 2002, Leegin discovered Kay’s Kloset had 

been marking down Brighton’s entire line by 20 percent. 

Kay’s Kloset contended it placed Brighton products on sale

to compete with nearby retailers who also were undercutting Leegin’s suggested prices. Leegin, nonetheless, re-
4 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v.

 PSKS, INC. 

Opinion of the Court

quested that Kay’s Kloset cease discounting. Its request

refused, Leegin stopped selling to the store. The loss of 

the Brighton brand had a considerable negative impact on

the store’s revenue from sales. 

PSKS sued Leegin in the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Texas. It alleged, among other 

claims, that Leegin had violated the antitrust laws by

“enter[ing] into agreements with retailers to charge only

those prices fixed by Leegin.” Id., at 1236. Leegin

planned to introduce expert testimony describing the 

procompetitive effects of its pricing policy. The District 

Court excluded the testimony, relying on the per se rule 

established by Dr. Miles. At trial PSKS argued that the 

Heart Store program, among other things, demonstrated

Leegin and its retailers had agreed to fix prices. Leegin

responded that it had established a unilateral pricing 

policy lawful under §1, which applies only to concerted 

action. See United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U. S. 300, 

307 (1919). The jury agreed with PSKS and awarded it 

$1.2 million. Pursuant to 15 U. S. C. §15(a), the District 

Court trebled the damages and reimbursed PSKS for its 

attorney’s fees and costs. It entered judgment against 

Leegin in the amount of $3,975,000.80. 

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. 171 

Fed. Appx. 464 (2006) (per curiam). On appeal Leegin did

not dispute that it had entered into vertical price-fixing

agreements with its retailers. Rather, it contended that 

the rule of reason should have applied to those agreements. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument. Id., 

at 466–467. It was correct to explain that it remained

bound by Dr. Miles “[b]ecause [the Supreme] Court has

consistently applied the per se rule to [vertical minimum 

price-fixing] agreements.” 171 Fed. Appx., at 466. On this 

premise the Court of Appeals held that the District Court

did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of

Leegin’s economic expert, for the per se rule rendered 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 5 

Opinion of the Court 

irrelevant any procompetitive justifications for Leegin’s

pricing policy. Id., at 467. We granted certiorari to determine whether vertical minimum resale price maintenance agreements should continue to be treated as per se 

unlawful. 549 U. S. ___ (2006). 

II 

Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits “[e]very contract,

combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several

States.” Ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §1. 

While §1 could be interpreted to proscribe all contracts, 

see, e.g., Board of Trade of Chicago v. United States, 246 

U. S. 231, 238 (1918), the Court has never “taken a literal

approach to [its] language,” Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, 547 

U. S. 1, 5 (2006). Rather, the Court has repeated time and 

again that §1 “outlaw[s] only unreasonable restraints.” 

State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U. S. 3, 10 (1997).

The rule of reason is the accepted standard for testing

whether a practice restrains trade in violation of §1. See 

Texaco, supra, at 5. “Under this rule, the factfinder 

weighs all of the circumstances of a case in deciding

whether a restrictive practice should be prohibited as 

imposing an unreasonable restraint on competition.” 

Continental T. V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U. S. 36, 

49 (1977). Appropriate factors to take into account include 

“specific information about the relevant business” and “the 

restraint’s history, nature, and effect.” Khan, supra, at 10. 

Whether the businesses involved have market power is a 

further, significant consideration. See, e.g., Copperweld 

Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U. S. 752, 768 

(1984) (equating the rule of reason with “an inquiry into 

market power and market structure designed to assess [a

restraint’s] actual effect”); see also Illinois Tool Works Inc. 

v. Independent Ink, Inc., 547 U. S. 28, 45–46 (2006). In its 

design and function the rule distinguishes between re-
6 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v.

 PSKS, INC. 

Opinion of the Court

straints with anticompetitive effect that are harmful to 

the consumer and restraints stimulating competition that

are in the consumer’s best interest. 

The rule of reason does not govern all restraints. Some 

types “are deemed unlawful per se.” Khan, supra, at 10. 

The per se rule, treating categories of restraints as necessarily illegal, eliminates the need to study the reasonableness of an individual restraint in light of the real market

forces at work, Business Electronics Corp. v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 485 U. S. 717, 723 (1988); and, it must be 

acknowledged, the per se rule can give clear guidance for

certain conduct. Restraints that are per se unlawful include horizontal agreements among competitors to fix

prices, see Texaco, supra, at 5, or to divide markets, see 

Palmer v. BRG of Ga., Inc., 498 U. S. 46, 49–50 (1990) (per 

curiam). 

 Resort to per se rules is confined to restraints, like those 

mentioned, “that would always or almost always tend to

restrict competition and decrease output.” Business Electronics, supra, at 723 (internal quotation marks omitted).

To justify a per se prohibition a restraint must have

“manifestly anticompetitive” effects, GTE Sylvania, supra, 

at 50, and “lack . . . any redeeming virtue,” Northwest 

Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pacific Stationery & Printing 

Co., 472 U. S. 284, 289 (1985) (internal quotation marks

omitted).

As a consequence, the per se rule is appropriate only

after courts have had considerable experience with the 

type of restraint at issue, see Broadcast Music, Inc. v. 

Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 441 U. S. 1, 9 (1979), 

and only if courts can predict with confidence that it would

be invalidated in all or almost all instances under the rule 

of reason, see Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Soc., 

457 U. S. 332, 344 (1982). It should come as no surprise, 

then, that “we have expressed reluctance to adopt per se

rules with regard to restraints imposed in the context of 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 7 

Opinion of the Court 

business relationships where the economic impact of 

certain practices is not immediately obvious.” Khan, 

supra, at 10 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 

White Motor Co. v. United States, 372 U. S. 253, 263 (1963) 

(refusing to adopt a per se rule for a vertical nonprice

restraint because of the uncertainty concerning whether 

this type of restraint satisfied the demanding standards

necessary to apply a per se rule). And, as we have stated, 

a “departure from the rule-of-reason standard must be 

based upon demonstrable economic effect rather than . . . 

upon formalistic line drawing.” GTE Sylvania, supra, at 

58–59. 

III 

The Court has interpreted Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John 

D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373 (1911), as establishing a 

per se rule against a vertical agreement between a manufacturer and its distributor to set minimum resale prices. 

See, e.g., Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., 465 

U. S. 752, 761 (1984). In Dr. Miles the plaintiff, a manufacturer of medicines, sold its products only to distributors

who agreed to resell them at set prices. The Court found 

the manufacturer’s control of resale prices to be unlawful. 

It relied on the common-law rule that “a general restraint 

upon alienation is ordinarily invalid.” 220 U. S., at 404– 

405. The Court then explained that the agreements would 

advantage the distributors, not the manufacturer, and 

were analogous to a combination among competing distributors, which the law treated as void. Id., at 407–408. 

The reasoning of the Court’s more recent jurisprudence

has rejected the rationales on which Dr. Miles was based. 

By relying on the common-law rule against restraints on

alienation, id., at 404–405, the Court justified its decision 

based on “formalistic” legal doctrine rather than “demonstrable economic effect,” GTE Sylvania, supra, at 58–59. 

The Court in Dr. Miles relied on a treatise published in 
8 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v.

 PSKS, INC. 

Opinion of the Court

1628, but failed to discuss in detail the business reasons 

that would motivate a manufacturer situated in 1911 to 

make use of vertical price restraints. Yet the Sherman 

Act’s use of “restraint of trade” “invokes the common law 

itself, . . . not merely the static content that the common

law had assigned to the term in 1890.” Business Electronics, supra, at 732. The general restraint on alienation, 

especially in the age when then-Justice Hughes used the 

term, tended to evoke policy concerns extraneous to the 

question that controls here. Usually associated with land, 

not chattels, the rule arose from restrictions removing real

property from the stream of commerce for generations.

The Court should be cautious about putting dispositive 

weight on doctrines from antiquity but of slight relevance. 

We reaffirm that “the state of the common law 400 or even 

100 years ago is irrelevant to the issue before us: the effect 

of the antitrust laws upon vertical distributional restraints in the American economy today.” GTE Sylvania, 

433 U. S., at 53, n. 21 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Dr. Miles, furthermore, treated vertical agreements a 

manufacturer makes with its distributors as analogous to

a horizontal combination among competing distributors.

See 220 U. S., at 407–408. In later cases, however, the 

Court rejected the approach of reliance on rules governing

horizontal restraints when defining rules applicable to

vertical ones. See, e.g., Business Electronics, supra, at 734 

(disclaiming the “notion of equivalence between the scope

of horizontal per se illegality and that of vertical per se 

illegality”); Maricopa County, supra, at 348, n. 18 (noting 

that “horizontal restraints are generally less defensible 

than vertical restraints”). Our recent cases formulate 

antitrust principles in accordance with the appreciated

differences in economic effect between vertical and horizontal agreements, differences the Dr. Miles Court failed 

to consider. 

The reasons upon which Dr. Miles relied do not justify a 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 9 

Opinion of the Court 

per se rule. As a consequence, it is necessary to examine, 

in the first instance, the economic effects of vertical 

agreements to fix minimum resale prices, and to determine whether the per se rule is nonetheless appropriate. 

See Business Electronics, 485 U. S., at 726. 

A 

Though each side of the debate can find sources to support its position, it suffices to say here that economics

literature is replete with procompetitive justifications for a

manufacturer’s use of resale price maintenance. See, e.g.,

Brief for Economists as Amici Curiae 16 (“In the theoretical literature, it is essentially undisputed that minimum

[resale price maintenance] can have procompetitive effects

and that under a variety of market conditions it is 

unlikely to have anticompetitive effects”); Brief for United 

States as Amicus Curiae 9 (“[T]here is a widespread consensus that permitting a manufacturer to control the price 

at which its goods are sold may promote interbrand competition and consumer welfare in a variety of ways”); ABA 

Section of Antitrust Law, Antitrust Law and Economics of 

Product Distribution 76 (2006) (“[T]he bulk of the economic literature on [resale price maintenance] suggests

that [it] is more likely to be used to enhance efficiency 

than for anticompetitive purposes”); see also H. Hovenkamp, The Antitrust Enterprise: Principle and Execution 

184–191 (2005) (hereinafter Hovenkamp); R. Bork, The 

Antitrust Paradox 288–291 (1978) (hereinafter Bork). 

Even those more skeptical of resale price maintenance 

acknowledge it can have procompetitive effects. See, e.g., 

Brief for William S. Comanor et al. as Amici Curiae 3 

(“[G]iven [the] diversity of effects [of resale price maintenance], one could reasonably take the position that a rule 

of reason rather than a per se approach is warranted”); 

F.M. Scherer & D. Ross, Industrial Market Structure and 

Economic Performance 558 (3d ed. 1990) (hereinafter 
10 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v.

 PSKS, INC. 

Opinion of the Court

Scherer & Ross) (“The overall balance between benefits

and costs [of resale price maintenance] is probably close”). 

The few recent studies documenting the competitive

effects of resale price maintenance also cast doubt on the

conclusion that the practice meets the criteria for a per se 

rule. See T. Overstreet, Resale Price Maintenance: Economic Theories and Empirical Evidence 170 (1983) (hereinafter Overstreet) (noting that “[e]fficient uses of [resale

price maintenance] are evidently not unusual or rare”); see

also Ippolito, Resale Price Maintenance: Empirical Evidence From Litigation, 34 J. Law & Econ. 263, 292–293

(1991) (hereinafter Ippolito).

The justifications for vertical price restraints are similar 

to those for other vertical restraints. See GTE Sylvania, 

433 U. S., at 54–57. Minimum resale price maintenance 

can stimulate interbrand competition—the competition

among manufacturers selling different brands of the same 

type of product—by reducing intrabrand competition—the 

competition among retailers selling the same brand. See 

id., at 51–52. The promotion of interbrand competition is 

important because “the primary purpose of the antitrust 

laws is to protect [this type of] competition.” Khan, 522 

U. S., at 15. A single manufacturer’s use of vertical price

restraints tends to eliminate intrabrand price competition; 

this in turn encourages retailers to invest in tangible or

intangible services or promotional efforts that aid the 

manufacturer’s position as against rival manufacturers. 

Resale price maintenance also has the potential to give

consumers more options so that they can choose among

low-price, low-service brands; high-price, high-service 

brands; and brands that fall in between. 

Absent vertical price restraints, the retail services that

enhance interbrand competition might be underprovided. 

This is because discounting retailers can free ride on 

retailers who furnish services and then capture some of

the increased demand those services generate. GTE Syl-
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 11 

Opinion of the Court 

vania, supra, at 55. Consumers might learn, for example,

about the benefits of a manufacturer’s product from a

retailer that invests in fine showrooms, offers product

demonstrations, or hires and trains knowledgeable employees. R. Posner, Antitrust Law 172–173 (2d ed. 2001) 

(hereinafter Posner). Or consumers might decide to buy

the product because they see it in a retail establishment 

that has a reputation for selling high-quality merchandise. 

Marvel & McCafferty, Resale Price Maintenance and 

Quality Certification, 15 Rand J. Econ. 346, 347–349 

(1984) (hereinafter Marvel & McCafferty). If the consumer can then buy the product from a retailer that discounts because it has not spent capital providing services 

or developing a quality reputation, the high-service retailer will lose sales to the discounter, forcing it to cut 

back its services to a level lower than consumers would 

otherwise prefer. Minimum resale price maintenance 

alleviates the problem because it prevents the discounter 

from undercutting the service provider. With price competition decreased, the manufacturer’s retailers compete 

among themselves over services. 

Resale price maintenance, in addition, can increase

interbrand competition by facilitating market entry for 

new firms and brands. “[N]ew manufacturers and manufacturers entering new markets can use the restrictions in 

order to induce competent and aggressive retailers to

make the kind of investment of capital and labor that is

often required in the distribution of products unknown to

the consumer.” GTE Sylvania, supra, at 55; see Marvel & 

McCafferty 349 (noting that reliance on a retailer’s reputation “will decline as the manufacturer’s brand becomes 

better known, so that [resale price maintenance] may be 

particularly important as a competitive device for new

entrants”). New products and new brands are essential to 

a dynamic economy, and if markets can be penetrated by 

using resale price maintenance there is a procompetitive 
12 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v.

 PSKS, INC. 

Opinion of the Court

effect. 

Resale price maintenance can also increase interbrand 

competition by encouraging retailer services that would

not be provided even absent free riding. It may be difficult

and inefficient for a manufacturer to make and enforce a 

contract with a retailer specifying the different services 

the retailer must perform. Offering the retailer a guaranteed margin and threatening termination if it does not live 

up to expectations may be the most efficient way to expand the manufacturer’s market share by inducing the 

retailer’s performance and allowing it to use its own initiative and experience in providing valuable services. See 

Mathewson & Winter, The Law and Economics of Resale 

Price Maintenance, 13 Rev. Indus. Org. 57, 74–75 (1998)

(hereinafter Mathewson & Winter); Klein & Murphy, 

Vertical Restraints as Contract Enforcement Mechanisms, 

31 J. Law & Econ. 265, 295 (1988); see also Deneckere, 

Marvel, & Peck, Demand Uncertainty, Inventories, and 

Resale Price Maintenance, 111 Q. J. Econ. 885, 911 (1996) 

(noting that resale price maintenance may be beneficial to

motivate retailers to stock adequate inventories of a 

manufacturer’s goods in the face of uncertain consumer 

demand). 

B 

While vertical agreements setting minimum resale

prices can have procompetitive justifications, they may 

have anticompetitive effects in other cases; and unlawful 

price fixing, designed solely to obtain monopoly profits, is 

an ever present temptation. Resale price maintenance

may, for example, facilitate a manufacturer cartel. See 

Business Electronics, 485 U. S., at 725. An unlawful cartel 

will seek to discover if some manufacturers are undercutting the cartel’s fixed prices. Resale price maintenance

could assist the cartel in identifying price-cutting manufacturers who benefit from the lower prices they offer. 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 13 

Opinion of the Court 

Resale price maintenance, furthermore, could discourage a

manufacturer from cutting prices to retailers with the 

concomitant benefit of cheaper prices to consumers. See 

ibid.; see also Posner 172; Overstreet 19–23. 

Vertical price restraints also “might be used to organize 

cartels at the retailer level.” Business Electronics, supra,

at 725–726. A group of retailers might collude to fix prices

to consumers and then compel a manufacturer to aid the

unlawful arrangement with resale price maintenance. In 

that instance the manufacturer does not establish the 

practice to stimulate services or to promote its brand but 

to give inefficient retailers higher profits. Retailers with 

better distribution systems and lower cost structures 

would be prevented from charging lower prices by the 

agreement. See Posner 172; Overstreet 13–19. Historical 

examples suggest this possibility is a legitimate concern.

See, e.g., Marvel & McCafferty, The Welfare Effects of 

Resale Price Maintenance, 28 J. Law & Econ. 363, 373 

(1985) (hereinafter Marvel) (providing an example of the

power of the National Association of Retail Druggists to

compel manufacturers to use resale price maintenance); 

Hovenkamp 186 (suggesting that the retail druggists in 

Dr. Miles formed a cartel and used manufacturers to 

enforce it).

A horizontal cartel among competing manufacturers or

competing retailers that decreases output or reduces 

competition in order to increase price is, and ought to be, 

per se unlawful. See Texaco, 547 U. S., at 5; GTE Sylvania, 433 U. S., at 58, n. 28. To the extent a vertical 

agreement setting minimum resale prices is entered upon

to facilitate either type of cartel, it, too, would need to be

held unlawful under the rule of reason. This type of 

agreement may also be useful evidence for a plaintiff 

attempting to prove the existence of a horizontal cartel. 

Resale price maintenance, furthermore, can be abused 

by a powerful manufacturer or retailer. A dominant re-
14 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v.

 PSKS, INC. 

Opinion of the Court

tailer, for example, might request resale price maintenance to forestall innovation in distribution that decreases 

costs. A manufacturer might consider it has little choice 

but to accommodate the retailer’s demands for vertical 

price restraints if the manufacturer believes it needs 

access to the retailer’s distribution network. See 

Overstreet 31; 8 P. Areeda & H. Hovenkamp, Antitrust

Law 47 (2d ed. 2004) (hereinafter Areeda & Hovenkamp); 

cf. Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. FTC, 221 F. 3d 928, 937–938 (CA7 

2000). A manufacturer with market power, by comparison, might use resale price maintenance to give retailers 

an incentive not to sell the products of smaller rivals or 

new entrants. See, e.g., Marvel 366–368. As should 

be evident, the potential anticompetitive consequences 

of vertical price restraints must not be ignored or

underestimated. 

C 

Notwithstanding the risks of unlawful conduct, it cannot 

be stated with any degree of confidence that resale price 

maintenance “always or almost always tend[s] to restrict 

competition and decrease output.” Business Electronics, 

supra, at 723 (internal quotation marks omitted). Vertical 

agreements establishing minimum resale prices can have 

either procompetitive or anticompetitive effects, depending

upon the circumstances in which they are formed. And 

although the empirical evidence on the topic is limited, it

does not suggest efficient uses of the agreements are

infrequent or hypothetical. See Overstreet 170; see also 

id., at 80 (noting that for the majority of enforcement

actions brought by the Federal Trade Commission between 1965 and 1982, “the use of [resale price maintenance] was not likely motivated by collusive dealers who

had successfully coerced their suppliers”); Ippolito 292

(reaching a similar conclusion). As the rule would proscribe a significant amount of procompetitive conduct, 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 15 

Opinion of the Court 

these agreements appear ill suited for per se condemnation. 

Respondent contends, nonetheless, that vertical price

restraints should be per se unlawful because of the administrative convenience of per se rules. See, e.g., GTE Sylvania, supra, at 50, n. 16 (noting “per se rules tend to provide

guidance to the business community and to minimize the 

burdens on litigants and the judicial system”). That argument suggests per se illegality is the rule rather than 

the exception. This misinterprets our antitrust law. Per 

se rules may decrease administrative costs, but that is 

only part of the equation. Those rules can be counterproductive. They can increase the total cost of the antitrust 

system by prohibiting procompetitive conduct the antitrust laws should encourage. See Easterbrook, Vertical 

Arrangements and the Rule of Reason, 53 Antitrust L. J. 

135, 158 (1984) (hereinafter Easterbrook). They also may

increase litigation costs by promoting frivolous suits 

against legitimate practices. The Court has thus explained that administrative “advantages are not sufficient 

in themselves to justify the creation of per se rules,” GTE 

Sylvania, 433 U. S., at 50, n. 16, and has relegated their 

use to restraints that are “manifestly anticompetitive,” id., 

at 49–50. Were the Court now to conclude that vertical 

price restraints should be per se illegal based on administrative costs, we would undermine, if not overrule, the 

traditional “demanding standards” for adopting per se 

rules. Id., at 50. Any possible reduction in administrative 

costs cannot alone justify the Dr. Miles rule. 

Respondent also argues the per se rule is justified because a vertical price restraint can lead to higher prices 

for the manufacturer’s goods. See also Overstreet 160 

(noting that “price surveys indicate that [resale price 

maintenance] in most cases increased the prices of products sold”). Respondent is mistaken in relying on pricing 

effects absent a further showing of anticompetitive con-
16 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v.

 PSKS, INC. 

Opinion of the Court

duct. Cf. id., at 106 (explaining that price surveys “do not 

necessarily tell us anything conclusive about the welfare

effects of [resale price maintenance] because the results

are generally consistent with both procompetitive and

anticompetitive theories”). For, as has been indicated 

already, the antitrust laws are designed primarily to

protect interbrand competition, from which lower prices

can later result. See Khan, 522 U. S., at 15. The Court, 

moreover, has evaluated other vertical restraints under 

the rule of reason even though prices can be increased in 

the course of promoting procompetitive effects. See, e.g., 

Business Electronics, 485 U. S., at 728. And resale price 

maintenance may reduce prices if manufacturers have 

resorted to costlier alternatives of controlling resale prices 

that are not per se unlawful. See infra, at 22–25; see also 

Marvel 371. 

Respondent’s argument, furthermore, overlooks that, in 

general, the interests of manufacturers and consumers are 

aligned with respect to retailer profit margins. The difference between the price a manufacturer charges retailers 

and the price retailers charge consumers represents part

of the manufacturer’s cost of distribution, which, like any

other cost, the manufacturer usually desires to minimize.

See GTE Sylvania, 433 U. S., at 56, n. 24; see also id., at 

56 (“Economists . . . have argued that manufacturers have

an economic interest in maintaining as much intrabrand 

competition as is consistent with the efficient distribution

of their products”). A manufacturer has no incentive to 

overcompensate retailers with unjustified margins. The 

retailers, not the manufacturer, gain from higher retail 

prices. The manufacturer often loses; interbrand competition reduces its competitiveness and market share because 

consumers will “substitute a different brand of the same 

product.” Id., at 52, n. 19; see Business Electronics, supra, 

at 725. As a general matter, therefore, a single manufacturer will desire to set minimum resale prices only if the 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 17 

Opinion of the Court 

“increase in demand resulting from enhanced service . . .

will more than offset a negative impact on demand of a

higher retail price.” Mathewson & Winter 67. 

The implications of respondent’s position are far reaching. Many decisions a manufacturer makes and carries 

out through concerted action can lead to higher prices. A 

manufacturer might, for example, contract with different

suppliers to obtain better inputs that improve product

quality. Or it might hire an advertising agency to promote

awareness of its goods. Yet no one would think these 

actions violate the Sherman Act because they lead to

higher prices. The antitrust laws do not require manufacturers to produce generic goods that consumers do not 

know about or want. The manufacturer strives to improve

its product quality or to promote its brand because it 

believes this conduct will lead to increased demand despite higher prices. The same can hold true for resale 

price maintenance.

Resale price maintenance, it is true, does have economic 

dangers. If the rule of reason were to apply to vertical

price restraints, courts would have to be diligent in eliminating their anticompetitive uses from the market. This is 

a realistic objective, and certain factors are relevant to the

inquiry. For example, the number of manufacturers that 

make use of the practice in a given industry can provide

important instruction. When only a few manufacturers

lacking market power adopt the practice, there is little

likelihood it is facilitating a manufacturer cartel, for a 

cartel then can be undercut by rival manufacturers. See 

Overstreet 22; Bork 294. Likewise, a retailer cartel is 

unlikely when only a single manufacturer in a competitive 

market uses resale price maintenance. Interbrand competition would divert consumers to lower priced substitutes 

and eliminate any gains to retailers from their price-fixing

agreement over a single brand. See Posner 172; Bork 292. 

Resale price maintenance should be subject to more care-
18 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v.

 PSKS, INC. 

Opinion of the Court

ful scrutiny, by contrast, if many competing manufacturers adopt the practice. Cf. Scherer & Ross 558 (noting 

that “except when [resale price maintenance] spreads to

cover the bulk of an industry’s output, depriving consumers of a meaningful choice between high-service and lowprice outlets, most [resale price maintenance arrangements] are probably innocuous”); Easterbrook 162 (suggesting that “every one of the potentially-anticompetitive 

outcomes of vertical arrangements depends on the uniformity of the practice”). 

The source of the restraint may also be an important

consideration. If there is evidence retailers were the 

impetus for a vertical price restraint, there is a greater

likelihood that the restraint facilitates a retailer cartel or 

supports a dominant, inefficient retailer. See Brief for 

William S. Comanor et al. as Amici Curiae 7–8. If, by

contrast, a manufacturer adopted the policy independent 

of retailer pressure, the restraint is less likely to promote 

anticompetitive conduct. Cf. Posner 177 (“It makes all the

difference whether minimum retail prices are imposed by 

the manufacturer in order to evoke point-of-sale services 

or by the dealers in order to obtain monopoly profits”). A 

manufacturer also has an incentive to protest inefficient 

retailer-induced price restraints because they can harm its

competitive position.

As a final matter, that a dominant manufacturer or 

retailer can abuse resale price maintenance for anticompetitive purposes may not be a serious concern unless the

relevant entity has market power. If a retailer lacks 

market power, manufacturers likely can sell their goods 

through rival retailers. See also Business Electronics, 

supra, at 727, n. 2 (noting “[r]etail market power is rare,

because of the usual presence of interbrand competition

and other dealers”). And if a manufacturer lacks market 

power, there is less likelihood it can use the practice to

keep competitors away from distribution outlets. 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 19 

Opinion of the Court 

The rule of reason is designed and used to eliminate

anticompetitive transactions from the market. This standard principle applies to vertical price restraints. A party

alleging injury from a vertical agreement setting minimum resale prices will have, as a general matter, the

information and resources available to show the existence 

of the agreement and its scope of operation. As courts 

gain experience considering the effects of these restraints

by applying the rule of reason over the course of decisions,

they can establish the litigation structure to ensure the

rule operates to eliminate anticompetitive restraints from

the market and to provide more guidance to businesses. 

Courts can, for example, devise rules over time for offering 

proof, or even presumptions where justified, to make the

rule of reason a fair and efficient way to prohibit anticompetitive restraints and to promote procompetitive ones. 

For all of the foregoing reasons, we think that were the

Court considering the issue as an original matter, the rule

of reason, not a per se rule of unlawfulness, would be the 

appropriate standard to judge vertical price restraints. 

IV 

We do not write on a clean slate, for the decision in Dr. 

Miles is almost a century old. So there is an argument for

its retention on the basis of stare decisis alone. Even if Dr. 

Miles established an erroneous rule, “[s]tare decisis reflects a policy judgment that in most matters it is more

important that the applicable rule of law be settled than

that it be settled right.” Khan, 522 U. S., at 20 (internal 

quotation marks omitted). And concerns about maintaining settled law are strong when the question is one of

statutory interpretation. See, e.g., Hohn v. United States, 

524 U. S. 236, 251 (1998). 

Stare decisis is not as significant in this case, however, 

because the issue before us is the scope of the Sherman 

Act. Khan, supra, at 20 (“[T]he general presumption that 
20 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v.

 PSKS, INC. 

Opinion of the Court

legislative changes should be left to Congress has less

force with respect to the Sherman Act”). From the beginning the Court has treated the Sherman Act as a commonlaw statute. See National Soc. of Professional Engineers v. 

United States, 435 U. S. 679, 688 (1978); see also Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers, 451 U. S. 77, 98, 

n. 42 (1981) (“In antitrust, the federal courts . . . act more

as common-law courts than in other areas governed by

federal statute”). Just as the common law adapts to modern understanding and greater experience, so too does the

Sherman Act’s prohibition on “restraint[s] of trade” evolve 

to meet the dynamics of present economic conditions. The 

case-by-case adjudication contemplated by the rule of 

reason has implemented this common-law approach. See 

National Soc. of Professional Engineers, supra, at 688. 

Likewise, the boundaries of the doctrine of per se illegality 

should not be immovable. For “[i]t would make no sense 

to create out of the single term ‘restraint of trade’ a

chronologically schizoid statute, in which a ‘rule of reason’ 

evolves with new circumstance and new wisdom, but a line 

of per se illegality remains forever fixed where it was.” 

Business Electronics, 485 U. S., at 732. 

A 

Stare decisis, we conclude, does not compel our continued adherence to the per se rule against vertical price 

restraints. As discussed earlier, respected authorities in 

the economics literature suggest the per se rule is inappropriate, and there is now widespread agreement that

resale price maintenance can have procompetitive effects. 

See, e.g., Brief for Economists as Amici Curiae 16. It is 

also significant that both the Department of Justice and

the Federal Trade Commission—the antitrust enforcement agencies with the ability to assess the long-term

impacts of resale price maintenance—have recommended

that this Court replace the per se rule with the traditional 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 21 

Opinion of the Court 

rule of reason. See Brief for United States as Amicus 

Curiae 6. In the antitrust context the fact that a decision 

has been “called into serious question” justifies our reevaluation of it. Khan, supra, at 21. 

Other considerations reinforce the conclusion that Dr. 

Miles should be overturned. Of most relevance, “we have 

overruled our precedents when subsequent cases have 

undermined their doctrinal underpinnings.” Dickerson v. 

United States, 530 U. S. 428, 443 (2000). The Court’s 

treatment of vertical restraints has progressed away from 

Dr. Miles’ strict approach. We have distanced ourselves 

from the opinion’s rationales. See supra, at 7–8; see also 

Khan, supra, at 21 (overruling a case when “the views

underlying [it had been] eroded by this Court’s precedent”); Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U. S. 477, 480–481 (1989) (same). This is 

unsurprising, for the case was decided not long after enactment of the Sherman Act when the Court had little 

experience with antitrust analysis. Only eight years after 

Dr. Miles, moreover, the Court reined in the decision by 

holding that a manufacturer can announce suggested 

resale prices and refuse to deal with distributors who do

not follow them. Colgate, 250 U. S., at 307–308. 

In more recent cases the Court, following a common-law

approach, has continued to temper, limit, or overrule once

strict prohibitions on vertical restraints. In 1977, the 

Court overturned the per se rule for vertical nonprice

restraints, adopting the rule of reason in its stead. GTE 

Sylvania, 433 U. S., at 57–59 (overruling United States v. 

Arnold, Schwinn & Co., 388 U. S. 365 (1967)); see also 433 

U. S., at 58, n. 29 (noting “that the advantages of vertical 

restrictions should not be limited to the categories of new

entrants and failing firms”). While the Court in a footnote 

in GTE Sylvania suggested that differences between 

vertical price and nonprice restraints could support different legal treatment, see 433 U. S., at 51, n. 18, the central 
22 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v.

 PSKS, INC. 

Opinion of the Court

part of the opinion relied on authorities and arguments

that find unequal treatment “difficult to justify,” id., at 

69–70 (White, J., concurring in judgment). 

Continuing in this direction, in two cases in the 1980’s

the Court defined legal rules to limit the reach of Dr. Miles 

and to accommodate the doctrines enunciated in GTE 

Sylvania and Colgate. See Business Electronics, supra, at 

726–728; Monsanto, 465 U. S., at 763–764. In Monsanto, 

the Court required that antitrust plaintiffs alleging a §1 

price-fixing conspiracy must present evidence tending to 

exclude the possibility a manufacturer and its distributors

acted in an independent manner. Id., at 764. Unlike 

Justice Brennan’s concurrence, which rejected arguments

that Dr. Miles should be overruled, see 465 U. S., at 769, 

the Court “decline[d] to reach the question” whether vertical agreements fixing resale prices always should be

unlawful because neither party suggested otherwise, id., 

at 761–762, n. 7. In Business Electronics the Court further narrowed the scope of Dr. Miles. It held that the per 

se rule applied only to specific agreements over price levels 

and not to an agreement between a manufacturer and a

distributor to terminate a price-cutting distributor. 485 

U. S., at 726–727, 735–736. 

Most recently, in 1997, after examining the issue of 

vertical maximum price-fixing agreements in light of

commentary and real experience, the Court overruled a

29-year-old precedent treating those agreements as per se 

illegal. Khan, 522 U. S., at 22 (overruling Albrecht v. 

Herald Co., 390 U. S. 145 (1968)). It held instead that 

they should be evaluated under the traditional rule of 

reason. 522 U. S., at 22. Our continued limiting of the

reach of the decision in Dr. Miles and our recent treatment 

of other vertical restraints justify the conclusion that Dr. 

Miles should not be retained. 

The Dr. Miles rule is also inconsistent with a principled 

framework, for it makes little economic sense when ana-
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 23 

Opinion of the Court 

lyzed with our other cases on vertical restraints. If we 

were to decide the procompetitive effects of resale price

maintenance were insufficient to overrule Dr. Miles, then 

cases such as Colgate and GTE Sylvania themselves 

would be called into question. These later decisions, while 

they may result in less intrabrand competition, can be 

justified because they permit manufacturers to secure the 

procompetitive benefits associated with vertical price

restraints through other methods. The other methods, 

however, could be less efficient for a particular manufacturer to establish and sustain. The end result hinders 

competition and consumer welfare because manufacturers

are forced to engage in second-best alternatives and because consumers are required to shoulder the increased

expense of the inferior practices. 

The manufacturer has a number of legitimate options to 

achieve benefits similar to those provided by vertical price

restraints. A manufacturer can exercise its Colgate right

to refuse to deal with retailers that do not follow its suggested prices. See 250 U. S., at 307. The economic effects 

of unilateral and concerted price setting are in general the 

same. See, e.g., Monsanto, 465 U. S., at 762–764. The 

problem for the manufacturer is that a jury might conclude its unilateral policy was really a vertical agreement,

subjecting it to treble damages and potential criminal 

liability. Ibid.; Business Electronics, supra, at 728. Even 

with the stringent standards in Monsanto and Business 

Electronics, this danger can lead, and has led, rational

manufacturers to take wasteful measures. See, e.g., Brief 

for PING, Inc., as Amicus Curiae 9–18. A manufacturer 

might refuse to discuss its pricing policy with its distributors except through counsel knowledgeable of the subtle 

intricacies of the law. Or it might terminate longstanding

distributors for minor violations without seeking an explanation. See ibid. The increased costs these burdensome measures generate flow to consumers in the form of 
24 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v.

 PSKS, INC. 

Opinion of the Court

higher prices. 

Furthermore, depending on the type of product it sells, a

manufacturer might be able to achieve the procompetitive

benefits of resale price maintenance by integrating downstream and selling its products directly to consumers. Dr. 

Miles tilts the relative costs of vertical integration and

vertical agreement by making the former more attractive 

based on the per se rule, not on real market conditions. 

See Business Electronics, supra, at 725; see generally 

Coase, The Nature of the Firm, 4 Economica, New Series 

386 (1937). This distortion might lead to inefficient integration that would not otherwise take place, so that consumers must again suffer the consequences of the suboptimal distribution strategy. And integration, unlike

vertical price restraints, eliminates all intrabrand competition. See, e.g., GTE Sylvania, 433 U. S., at 57, n. 26. 

There is yet another consideration. A manufacturer can 

impose territorial restrictions on distributors and allow

only one distributor to sell its goods in a given region. Our 

cases have recognized, and the economics literature confirms, that these vertical nonprice restraints have impacts

similar to those of vertical price restraints; both reduce

intrabrand competition and can stimulate retailer services. See, e.g., Business Electronics, supra, at 728; Monsanto, supra, at 762–763; see also Brief for Economists as 

Amici Curiae 17–18. Cf. Scherer & Ross 560 (noting that 

vertical nonprice restraints “can engender inefficiencies at 

least as serious as those imposed upon the consumer by 

resale price maintenance”); Steiner, How Manufacturers

Deal with the Price-Cutting Retailer: When Are Vertical

Restraints Efficient?, 65 Antitrust L. J. 407, 446–447 

(1997) (indicating that “antitrust law should recognize

that the consumer interest is often better served by [resale

price maintenance]—contrary to its per se illegality and

the rule-of-reason status of vertical nonprice restraints”).

The same legal standard (per se unlawfulness) applies to 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 25 

Opinion of the Court 

horizontal market division and horizontal price fixing

because both have similar economic effect. There is likewise little economic justification for the current differential treatment of vertical price and nonprice restraints. 

Furthermore, vertical nonprice restraints may prove less 

efficient for inducing desired services, and they reduce

intrabrand competition more than vertical price restraints

by eliminating both price and service competition. See 

Brief for Economists as Amici Curiae 17–18. 

In sum, it is a flawed antitrust doctrine that serves the 

interests of lawyers—by creating legal distinctions that

operate as traps for the unwary—more than the interests 

of consumers—by requiring manufacturers to choose 

second-best options to achieve sound business objectives. 

B 

Respondent’s arguments for reaffirming Dr. Miles on the 

basis of stare decisis do not require a different result.

Respondent looks to congressional action concerning vertical price restraints. In 1937, Congress passed the MillerTydings Fair Trade Act, 50 Stat. 693, which made vertical 

price restraints legal if authorized by a fair trade law 

enacted by a State. Fifteen years later, Congress expanded the exemption to permit vertical price-setting

agreements between a manufacturer and a distributor to 

be enforced against other distributors not involved in the 

agreement. McGuire Act, 66 Stat. 632. In 1975, however, 

Congress repealed both Acts. Consumer Goods Pricing

Act, 89 Stat. 801. That the Dr. Miles rule applied to vertical price restraints in 1975, according to respondent, 

shows Congress ratified the rule.

This is not so. The text of the Consumer Goods Pricing

Act did not codify the rule of per se illegality for vertical 

price restraints. It rescinded statutory provisions that 

made them per se legal. Congress once again placed these 

restraints within the ambit of §1 of the Sherman Act. 
26 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v.

 PSKS, INC. 

Opinion of the Court

And, as has been discussed, Congress intended §1 to give 

courts the ability “to develop governing principles of law” 

in the common-law tradition. Texas Industries, Inc. v. 

Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U. S. 630, 643 (1981); see 

Business Electronics, 485 U. S., at 731 (“The changing 

content of the term ‘restraint of trade’ was well recognized 

at the time the Sherman Act was enacted”). Congress 

could have set the Dr. Miles rule in stone, but it chose a 

more flexible option. We respect its decision by analyzing 

vertical price restraints, like all restraints, in conformance 

with traditional §1 principles, including the principle that 

our antitrust doctrines “evolv[e] with new circumstances

and new wisdom.” Business Electronics, supra, at 732; see 

also Easterbrook 139. 

The rule of reason, furthermore, is not inconsistent with 

the Consumer Goods Pricing Act. Unlike the earlier congressional exemption, it does not treat vertical price restraints as per se legal. In this respect, the justifications

for the prior exemption are illuminating. Its goal “was to 

allow the States to protect small retail establishments

that Congress thought might otherwise be driven from the 

marketplace by large-volume discounters.” California 

Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 

U. S. 97, 102 (1980). The state fair trade laws also appear

to have been justified on similar grounds. See Areeda & 

Hovenkamp 298. The rationales for these provisions are

foreign to the Sherman Act. Divorced from competition

and consumer welfare, they were designed to save inefficient small retailers from their inability to compete. The 

purpose of the antitrust laws, by contrast, is “the protection of competition, not competitors.” Atlantic Richfield 

Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U. S. 328, 338 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). To the extent Congress

repealed the exemption for some vertical price restraints 

to end its prior practice of encouraging anticompetitive 

conduct, the rule of reason promotes the same objective. 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 27 

Opinion of the Court 

Respondent also relies on several congressional appropriations in the mid-1980’s in which Congress did not 

permit the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade

Commission to use funds to advocate overturning Dr. 

Miles. See, e.g., 97 Stat. 1071. We need not pause long in 

addressing this argument. The conditions on funding are 

no longer in place, see, e.g., Brief for United States as 

Amicus Curiae 21, and they were ambiguous at best. As 

much as they might show congressional approval for Dr. 

Miles, they might demonstrate a different proposition: 

that Congress could not pass legislation codifying the rule 

and reached a short-term compromise instead. 

Reliance interests do not require us to reaffirm Dr. 

Miles. To be sure, reliance on a judicial opinion is a significant reason to adhere to it, Payne v. Tennessee, 501 

U. S. 808, 828 (1991), especially “in cases involving property and contract rights,” Khan, 522 U. S., at 20. The 

reliance interests here, however, like the reliance interests 

in Khan, cannot justify an inefficient rule, especially

because the narrowness of the rule has allowed manufacturers to set minimum resale prices in other ways. And 

while the Dr. Miles rule is longstanding, resale price 

maintenance was legal under fair trade laws in a majority

of States for a large part of the past century up until 1975. 

It is also of note that during this time “when the legal

environment in the [United States] was most favorable for 

[resale price maintenance], no more than a tiny fraction of 

manufacturers ever employed [resale price maintenance] 

contracts.” Overstreet 6; see also id., at 169 (noting that 

“no more than one percent of manufacturers, accounting 

for no more than ten percent of consumer goods purchases, 

ever employed [resale price maintenance] in any single

year in the [United States]”); Scherer & Ross 549 (noting 

that “[t]he fraction of U.S. retail sales covered by [resale 

price maintenance] in its heyday has been variously estimated at from 4 to 10 percent”). To the extent consumers 
28 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v.

 PSKS, INC. 

Opinion of the Court

demand cheap goods, judging vertical price restraints

under the rule of reason will not prevent the market from

providing them. Cf. Easterbrook 152–153 (noting that 

“S.S. Kresge (the old K-Mart) flourished during the days of

manufacturers’ greatest freedom” because “discount stores 

offer a combination of price and service that many customers value” and that “[n]othing in restricted dealing

threatens the ability of consumers to find low prices”); 

Scherer & Ross 557 (noting that “for the most part, the 

effects of the [Consumer Goods Pricing Act] were imperceptible because the forces of competition had already 

repealed the [previous antitrust exemption] in their own 

quiet way”).

For these reasons the Court’s decision in Dr. Miles 

Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373 

(1911), is now overruled. Vertical price restraints are to

be judged according to the rule of reason. 

V 

Noting that Leegin’s president has an ownership interest in retail stores that sell Brighton, respondent claims

Leegin participated in an unlawful horizontal cartel with

competing retailers. Respondent did not make this allegation in the lower courts, and we do not consider it here. 

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and

the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this 

opinion. 

It is so ordered. 
_________________ 

_________________ 

Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 1 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

No. 06–480 

LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC., 

PETITIONER v. PSKS, INC., DBA KAY’S 

KLOSET . . . KAY’S SHOES 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

[June 28, 2007] 

JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE 

SOUTER, and JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting. 

In Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 

220 U. S. 373, 394, 408–409 (1911), this Court held that 

an agreement between a manufacturer of proprietary 

medicines and its dealers to fix the minimum price at 

which its medicines could be sold was “invalid . . . under 

the [Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. §1].” This Court has consistently read Dr. Miles as establishing a bright-line rule 

that agreements fixing minimum resale prices are per se 

illegal. See, e.g., United States v. Trenton Potteries Co., 

273 U. S. 392, 399–401 (1927); NYNEX Corp. v. Discon, 

Inc., 525 U. S. 128, 133 (1998). That per se rule is one 

upon which the legal profession, business, and the public 

have relied for close to a century. Today the Court holds 

that courts must determine the lawfulness of minimum 

resale price maintenance by applying, not a bright-line per 

se rule, but a circumstance-specific “rule of reason.” Ante, 

at 28. And in doing so it overturns Dr. Miles. 

The Court justifies its departure from ordinary considerations of stare decisis by pointing to a set of arguments 

well known in the antitrust literature for close to half a 

century. See ante, at 10–12. Congress has repeatedly 
2 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v.

 PSKS, INC. 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

found in these arguments insufficient grounds for overturning the per se rule. See, e.g., Hearings on H. R. 10527 

et al. before the Subcommittee on Commerce and Finance 

of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., 74–76, 89, 99, 101–102, 192– 

195, 261–262 (1958). And, in my view, they do not warrant the Court’s now overturning so well-established a 

legal precedent. 

I 

The Sherman Act seeks to maintain a marketplace free

of anticompetitive practices, in particular those enforced

by agreement among private firms. The law assumes that 

such a marketplace, free of private restrictions, will tend

to bring about the lower prices, better products, and more 

efficient production processes that consumers typically

desire. In determining the lawfulness of particular practices, courts often apply a “rule of reason.” They examine

both a practice’s likely anticompetitive effects and its

beneficial business justifications. See, e.g., National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 

468 U. S. 85, 109–110, and n. 39 (1984); National Soc. of 

Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 U. S. 679, 

688–691 (1978); Board of Trade of Chicago v. United 

States, 246 U. S. 231, 238 (1918). 

Nonetheless, sometimes the likely anticompetitive

consequences of a particular practice are so serious and 

the potential justifications so few (or, e.g., so difficult to 

prove) that courts have departed from a pure “rule of 

reason” approach. And sometimes this Court has imposed 

a rule of per se unlawfulness—a rule that instructs courts 

to find the practice unlawful all (or nearly all) the time. 

See, e.g., NYNEX, supra, at 133; Arizona v. Maricopa 

County Medical Soc., 457 U. S. 332, 343–344, and n. 16 

(1982); Continental T. V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 

U. S. 36, 50, n. 16 (1977); United States v. Topco Associ-
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 3 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

ates, Inc., 405 U. S. 596, 609–611 (1972); United States v. 

Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U. S. 150, 213–214 (1940) 

(citing and quoting Trenton Potteries, supra, at 397–398). 

The case before us asks which kind of approach the

courts should follow where minimum resale price maintenance is at issue. Should they apply a per se rule (or a

variation) that would make minimum resale price maintenance always (or almost always) unlawful? Should they 

apply a “rule of reason”? Were the Court writing on a

blank slate, I would find these questions difficult. But, of 

course, the Court is not writing on a blank slate, and that

fact makes a considerable legal difference. 

To best explain why the question would be difficult were

we deciding it afresh, I briefly summarize several classical 

arguments for and against the use of a per se rule. The 

arguments focus on three sets of considerations, those

involving: (1) potential anticompetitive effects, (2) potential benefits, and (3) administration. The difficulty arises

out of the fact that the different sets of considerations 

point in different directions. See, e.g., 8 P. Areeda, Antitrust Law ¶¶1628–1633, pp. 330–392 (1st ed. 1989) (hereinafter Areeda); 8 P. Areeda & H. Hovenkamp, Antitrust 

Law ¶¶1628–1633, pp. 288–339 (2d ed. 2004) (hereinafter 

Areeda & Hovenkamp); Easterbrook, Vertical Arrangements and the Rule of Reason, 53 Antitrust L. J. 135, 146– 

152 (1984) (hereinafter Easterbrook); Pitofsky, In Defense 

of Discounters: The No-Frills Case for a Per Se Rule 

Against Vertical Price Fixing, 71 Geo. L. J. 1487 (1983) 

(hereinafter Pitofsky); Scherer, The Economics of Vertical

Restraints, 52 Antitrust L. J. 687, 706–707 (1983) (hereinafter Scherer); Posner, The Next Step in the Antitrust 

Treatment of Restricted Distribution: Per Se Legality, 48

U. Chi. L. Rev. 6, 22–26 (1981); Brief for William S. Comanor and Frederic M. Scherer as Amici Curiae 7–10. 

On the one hand, agreements setting minimum resale

prices may have serious anticompetitive consequences. In 
4 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v.

 PSKS, INC. 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

respect to dealers: Resale price maintenance agreements, 

rather like horizontal price agreements, can diminish or 

eliminate price competition among dealers of a single

brand or (if practiced generally by manufacturers) among 

multibrand dealers. In doing so, they can prevent dealers

from offering customers the lower prices that many customers prefer; they can prevent dealers from responding to

changes in demand, say falling demand, by cutting prices; 

they can encourage dealers to substitute service, for price,

competition, thereby threatening wastefully to attract too 

many resources into that portion of the industry; they can

inhibit expansion by more efficient dealers whose lower 

prices might otherwise attract more customers, stifling the 

development of new, more efficient modes of retailing; and 

so forth. See, e.g., 8 Areeda & Hovenkamp ¶1632c, at

319–321; Steiner, The Evolution and Applications of DualStage Thinking, 49 The Antitrust Bulletin 877, 899–900

(2004); Comanor, Vertical Price-Fixing, Vertical Market

Restrictions, and the New Antitrust Policy, 98 Harv.

L. Rev. 983, 990–1000 (1985). 

In respect to producers: Resale price maintenance agreements can help to reinforce the competition-inhibiting

behavior of firms in concentrated industries. In such 

industries firms may tacitly collude, i.e., observe each 

other’s pricing behavior, each understanding that price

cutting by one firm is likely to trigger price competition by

all. See 8 Areeda & Hovenkamp ¶1632d, at 321–323; P. 

Areeda & L. Kaplow, Antitrust Analysis ¶¶231–233, pp. 

276–283 (4th ed. 1988) (hereinafter Areeda & Kaplow). 

Cf. United States v. Container Corp. of America, 393 U. S. 

333 (1969); Areeda & Kaplow ¶¶247–253, at 327–348.

Where that is so, resale price maintenance can make it 

easier for each producer to identify (by observing retail

markets) when a competitor has begun to cut prices. And 

a producer who cuts wholesale prices without lowering the 

minimum resale price will stand to gain little, if anything, 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 5 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

in increased profits, because the dealer will be unable to 

stimulate increased consumer demand by passing along 

the producer’s price cut to consumers. In either case, 

resale price maintenance agreements will tend to prevent 

price competition from “breaking out”; and they will 

thereby tend to stabilize producer prices. See Pitofsky 

1490–1491. Cf., e.g., Container Corp., supra, at 336–337. 

Those who express concern about the potential anticompetitive effects find empirical support in the behavior of

prices before, and then after, Congress in 1975 repealed 

the Miller-Tydings Fair Trade Act, 50 Stat. 693, and the 

McGuire Act, 66 Stat. 631. Those Acts had permitted (but

not required) individual States to enact “fair trade” laws

authorizing minimum resale price maintenance. At the 

time of repeal minimum resale price maintenance was

lawful in 36 States; it was unlawful in 14 States. See 

Hearings on S. 408 before the Subcommittee on Antitrust 

and Monopoly of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary,

94th Cong., 1st Sess., 173 (1975) (hereinafter Hearings on

S. 408) (statement of Thomas E. Kauper, Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division). Comparing prices in the 

former States with prices in the latter States, the Department of Justice argued that minimum resale price maintenance had raised prices by 19% to 27%. See Hearings on 

H. R. 2384 before the Subcommittee on Monopolies and 

Commercial Law of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., 122 (1975) (hereinafter Hearings on H. R. 2384) (statement of Keith I. Clearwaters, 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division). 

After repeal, minimum resale price maintenance agreements were unlawful per se in every State. The Federal 

Trade Commission (FTC) staff, after studying numerous

price surveys, wrote that collectively the surveys “indicate[d] that [resale price maintenance] in most cases

increased the prices of products sold with [resale price 

maintenance].” Bureau of Economics Staff Report to the 
6 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v.

 PSKS, INC. 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

FTC, T. Overstreet, Resale Price Maintenance: Economic 

Theories and Empirical Evidence, 160 (1983) (hereinafter 

Overstreet). Most economists today agree that, in the 

words of a prominent antitrust treatise, “resale price

maintenance tends to produce higher consumer prices

than would otherwise be the case.” 8 Areeda & Hovenkamp ¶1604b, at 40 (finding “[t]he evidence . . . persuasive 

on this point”). See also Brief for William S. Comanor and 

Frederic M. Scherer as Amici Curiae 4 (“It is uniformly 

acknowledged that [resale price maintenance] and other 

vertical restraints lead to higher consumer prices”). 

On the other hand, those favoring resale price maintenance have long argued that resale price maintenance

agreements can provide important consumer benefits. 

The majority lists two: First, such agreements can facilitate new entry. Ante, at 11–12. For example, a newly 

entering producer wishing to build a product name might 

be able to convince dealers to help it do so—if, but only if, 

the producer can assure those dealers that they will later 

recoup their investment. Without resale price maintenance, late-entering dealers might take advantage of the 

earlier investment and, through price competition, drive

prices down to the point where the early dealers cannot 

recover what they spent. By assuring the initial dealers

that such later price competition will not occur, resale

price maintenance can encourage them to carry the new 

product, thereby helping the new producer succeed. See 8 

Areeda & Hovenkamp ¶¶1617a, 1631b, at 193–196, 308. 

The result might be increased competition at the producer

level, i.e., greater inter-brand competition, that brings

with it net consumer benefits. 

Second, without resale price maintenance a producer

might find its efforts to sell a product undermined by what

resale price maintenance advocates call “free riding.” 

Ante, at 10–11. Suppose a producer concludes that it can 

succeed only if dealers provide certain services, say, prod-
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 7 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

uct demonstrations, high quality shops, advertising that

creates a certain product image, and so forth. Without 

resale price maintenance, some dealers might take a “free 

ride” on the investment that others make in providing

those services. Such a dealer would save money by not 

paying for those services and could consequently cut its 

own price and increase its own sales. Under these circumstances, dealers might prove unwilling to invest in the 

provision of necessary services. See, e.g., 8 Areeda & 

Hovenkamp ¶¶1611–1613, 1631c, at 126–165, 309–313; R. 

Posner, Antitrust Law 172–173 (2d ed. 2001); R. Bork, The 

Antitrust Paradox 290–291 (1978) (hereinafter Bork); 

Easterbrook 146–149. 

Moreover, where a producer and not a group of dealers

seeks a resale price maintenance agreement, there is a 

special reason to believe some such benefits exist. That is 

because, other things being equal, producers should want 

to encourage price competition among their dealers. By

doing so they will often increase profits by selling more of

their product. See Sylvania, 433 U. S., at 56, n. 24; Bork 

290. And that is so, even if the producer possesses sufficient market power to earn a super-normal profit. That is 

to say, other things being equal, the producer will benefit 

by charging his dealers a competitive (or even a higherthan-competitive) wholesale price while encouraging price

competition among them. Hence, if the producer is the 

moving force, the producer must have some special reason 

for wanting resale price maintenance; and in the absence

of, say, concentrated producer markets (where that special

reason might consist of a desire to stabilize wholesale 

prices), that special reason may well reflect the special 

circumstances just described: new entry, “free riding,” or

variations on those themes. 

The upshot is, as many economists suggest, sometimes

resale price maintenance can prove harmful; sometimes it

can bring benefits. See, e.g., Brief for Economists as Amici 
8 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v.

 PSKS, INC. 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

Curiae 16; 8 Areeda & Hovenkamp ¶¶1631–1632, at 306–

328; Pitofsky 1495; Scherer 706–707. But before concluding that courts should consequently apply a rule of reason, 

I would ask such questions as, how often are harms or 

benefits likely to occur? How easy is it to separate the 

beneficial sheep from the antitrust goats? 

Economic discussion, such as the studies the Court 

relies upon, can help provide answers to these questions,

and in doing so, economics can, and should, inform antitrust law. But antitrust law cannot, and should not, 

precisely replicate economists’ (sometimes conflicting)

views. That is because law, unlike economics, is an administrative system the effects of which depend upon the 

content of rules and precedents only as they are applied by 

judges and juries in courts and by lawyers advising their 

clients. And that fact means that courts will often bring 

their own administrative judgment to bear, sometimes

applying rules of per se unlawfulness to business practices

even when those practices sometimes produce benefits. 

See, e.g., F.M. Scherer & D. Ross, Industrial Market 

Structure and Economic Performance 335–339 (3d ed. 

1990) (hereinafter Scherer & Ross) (describing some circumstances under which price-fixing agreements could be

more beneficial than “unfettered competition,” but also 

noting potential costs of moving from a per se ban to a rule 

of reasonableness assessment of such agreements). 

I have already described studies and analyses that 

suggest (though they cannot prove) that resale price maintenance can cause harms with some regularity—and

certainly when dealers are the driving force. But what 

about benefits? How often, for example, will the benefits 

to which the Court points occur in practice? I can find no 

economic consensus on this point. There is a consensus in 

the literature that “free riding” takes place. But “free 

riding” often takes place in the economy without any legal 

effort to stop it. Many visitors to California take free rides 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 9 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

on the Pacific Coast Highway. We all benefit freely from

ideas, such as that of creating the first supermarket.

Dealers often take a “free ride” on investments that others 

have made in building a product’s name and reputation. 

The question is how often the “free riding” problem is

serious enough significantly to deter dealer investment. 

To be more specific, one can easily imagine a dealer who 

refuses to provide important presale services, say a detailed explanation of how a product works (or who fails to 

provide a proper atmosphere in which to sell expensive 

perfume or alligator billfolds), lest customers use that 

“free” service (or enjoy the psychological benefit arising 

when a high-priced retailer stocks a particular brand of

billfold or handbag) and then buy from another dealer at a 

lower price. Sometimes this must happen in reality. But 

does it happen often? We do, after all, live in an economy

where firms, despite Dr. Miles’ per se rule, still sell complex technical equipment (as well as expensive perfume

and alligator billfolds) to consumers. 

All this is to say that the ultimate question is not

whether, but how much, “free riding” of this sort takes

place. And, after reading the briefs, I must answer that

question with an uncertain “sometimes.” See, e.g., Brief 

for William S. Comanor and Frederic M. Scherer as Amici 

Curiae 6–7 (noting “skepticism in the economic literature

about how often [free riding] actually occurs”); Scherer &

Ross 551–555 (explaining the “severe limitations” of the 

free-rider justification for resale price maintenance); 

Pitofsky, Why Dr. Miles Was Right, 8 Regulation, No. 1,

pp. 27, 29–30 (Jan./Feb. 1984) (similar analysis). 

How easily can courts identify instances in which the

benefits are likely to outweigh potential harms? My own

answer is, not very easily. For one thing, it is often difficult to identify who—producer or dealer—is the moving

force behind any given resale price maintenance agreement. Suppose, for example, several large multibrand 
10 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v.

 PSKS, INC. 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

retailers all sell resale-price-maintained products. Suppose further that small producers set retail prices because 

they fear that, otherwise, the large retailers will favor 

(say, by allocating better shelf-space) the goods of other

producers who practice resale price maintenance. Who 

“initiated” this practice, the retailers hoping for considerable insulation from retail competition, or the producers, 

who simply seek to deal best with the circumstances they

find? For another thing, as I just said, it is difficult to

determine just when, and where, the “free riding” problem

is serious enough to warrant legal protection. 

I recognize that scholars have sought to develop check

lists and sets of questions that will help courts separate 

instances where anticompetitive harms are more likely 

from instances where only benefits are likely to be found. 

See, e.g., 8 Areeda & Hovenkamp ¶¶1633c–1633e, at 330– 

339. See also Brief for William S. Comanor and Frederic 

M. Scherer as Amici Curiae 8–10. But applying these 

criteria in court is often easier said than done. The 

Court’s invitation to consider the existence of “market 

power,” for example, ante, at 18, invites lengthy timeconsuming argument among competing experts, as they

seek to apply abstract, highly technical, criteria to often 

ill-defined markets. And resale price maintenance cases,

unlike a major merger or monopoly case, are likely to 

prove numerous and involve only private parties. One 

cannot fairly expect judges and juries in such cases to

apply complex economic criteria without making a considerable number of mistakes, which themselves may impose

serious costs. See, e.g., H. Hovenkamp, The Antitrust 

Enterprise 105 (2005) (litigating a rule of reason case is

“one of the most costly procedures in antitrust practice”).

See also Bok, Section 7 of the Clayton Act and the Merging of Law and Economics, 74 Harv. L. Rev. 226, 238–247 

(1960) (describing lengthy FTC efforts to apply complex 

criteria in a merger case). 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 11 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

Are there special advantages to a bright-line rule?

Without such a rule, it is often unfair, and consequently

impractical, for enforcement officials to bring criminal 

proceedings. And since enforcement resources are limited, 

that loss may tempt some producers or dealers to enter 

into agreements that are, on balance, anticompetitive. 

Given the uncertainties that surround key items in the

overall balance sheet, particularly in respect to the “administrative” questions, I can concede to the majority that

the problem is difficult. And, if forced to decide now, at 

most I might agree that the per se rule should be slightly 

modified to allow an exception for the more easily identifiable and temporary condition of “new entry.” See Pitofsky 

1495. But I am not now forced to decide this question.

The question before us is not what should be the rule,

starting from scratch. We here must decide whether to 

change a clear and simple price-related antitrust rule that 

the courts have applied for nearly a century. 

II 

We write, not on a blank slate, but on a slate that begins

with Dr. Miles and goes on to list a century’s worth of

similar cases, massive amounts of advice that lawyers 

have provided their clients, and untold numbers of business decisions those clients have taken in reliance upon

that advice. See, e.g., United States v. Bausch & Lomb 

Optical Co., 321 U. S. 707, 721 (1944); Sylvania, 433 U. S., 

at 51, n. 18 (“The per se illegality of [vertical] price restrictions has been established firmly for many years . . .”). 

Indeed a Westlaw search shows that Dr. Miles itself has 

been cited dozens of times in this Court and hundreds of 

times in lower courts. Those who wish this Court to 

change so well-established a legal precedent bear a heavy 

burden of proof. See Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U. S. 

720, 736 (1977) (noting, in declining to overrule an earlier 

case interpreting §4 of the Clayton Act, that “considera-
12 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v.

 PSKS, INC. 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

tions of stare decisis weigh heavily in the area of statutory 

construction, where Congress is free to change this Court’s 

interpretation of its legislation”). I am not aware of any 

case in which this Court has overturned so wellestablished a statutory precedent. Regardless, I do not see 

how the Court can claim that ordinary criteria for overruling an earlier case have been met. See, e.g., Planned 

Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 

854–855 (1992). See also Federal Election Comm’n v. 

Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., ante, at 19–21 (SCALIA, J., 

concurring in part and concurring in judgment). 

A 

I can find no change in circumstances in the past several

decades that helps the majority’s position. In fact, there 

has been one important change that argues strongly to the 

contrary. In 1975, Congress repealed the McGuire and 

Miller-Tydings Acts. See Consumer Goods Pricing Act of 

1975, 89 Stat. 801. And it thereby consciously extended 

Dr. Miles’ per se rule. Indeed, at that time the Department of Justice and the FTC, then urging application of

the per se rule, discussed virtually every argument presented now to this Court as well as others not here presented. And they explained to Congress why Congress

should reject them. See Hearings on S. 408, at 176–177 

(statement of Thomas E. Kauper, Assistant Attorney

General, Antitrust Division); id., at 170–172 (testimony of 

Lewis A. Engman, Chairman of the FTC); Hearings on 

H. R. 2384, at 113–114 (testimony of Keith I. Clearwaters, 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division). 

Congress fully understood, and consequently intended, 

that the result of its repeal of McGuire and Miller-Tydings

would be to make minimum resale price maintenance per 

se unlawful. See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 94–466, pp. 1–3 (1975) 

(“Without [the exemptions authorized by the MillerTydings and McGuire Acts,] the agreements they author-
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 13 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

ize would violate the antitrust laws. . . . [R]epeal of the fair

trade laws generally will prohibit manufacturers from

enforcing resale prices”). See also Sylvania, supra, at 51, 

n. 18 (“Congress recently has expressed its approval of a 

per se analysis of vertical price restrictions by repealing 

those provisions of the Miller-Tydings and McGuire Acts

allowing fair-trade pricing at the option of the individual 

States”).

Congress did not prohibit this Court from reconsidering 

the per se rule. But enacting major legislation premised 

upon the existence of that rule constitutes important

public reliance upon that rule. And doing so aware of the 

relevant arguments constitutes even stronger reliance

upon the Court’s keeping the rule, at least in the absence 

of some significant change in respect to those arguments. 

Have there been any such changes? There have been a 

few economic studies, described in some of the briefs, that 

argue, contrary to the testimony of the Justice Department and FTC to Congress in 1975, that resale price

maintenance is not harmful. One study, relying on an

analysis of litigated resale price maintenance cases from

1975 to 1982, concludes that resale price maintenance

does not ordinarily involve producer or dealer collusion. 

See Ippolito, Resale Price Maintenance: Empirical Evidence from Litigation, 34 J. Law & Econ. 263, 281–282, 

292 (1991). But this study equates the failure of plaintiffs 

to allege collusion with the absence of collusion—an equation that overlooks the superfluous nature of allegations of

horizontal collusion in a resale price maintenance case 

and the tacit form that such collusion might take. See H. 

Hovenkamp, Federal Antitrust Policy §11.3c, p. 464, n. 19 

(3d ed. 2005); supra, at 4–5. 

The other study provides a theoretical basis for concluding that resale price maintenance “need not lead to higher 

retail prices.” Marvel & McCafferty, The Political Economy of Resale Price Maintenance, 94 J. Pol. Econ. 1074, 
14 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v.

 PSKS, INC. 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

1075 (1986). But this study develops a theoretical model 

“under the assumption that [resale price maintenance] is 

efficiency-enhancing.” Ibid. Its only empirical support is

a 1940 study that the authors acknowledge is much criticized. See id., at 1091. And many other economists take a

different view. See Brief for William S. Comanor and 

Frederic M. Scherer as Amici Curiae 4. 

Regardless, taken together, these studies at most may

offer some mild support for the majority’s position. But 

they cannot constitute a major change in circumstances. 

Petitioner and some amici have also presented us with

newer studies that show that resale price maintenance 

sometimes brings consumer benefits. Overstreet 119–129 

(describing numerous case studies). But the proponents of 

a per se rule have always conceded as much. What is 

remarkable about the majority’s arguments is that nothing in this respect is new. See supra, at 3, 12 (citing articles and congressional testimony going back several decades). The only new feature of these arguments lies in the

fact that the most current advocates of overruling Dr. 

Miles have abandoned a host of other not-very-persuasive

arguments upon which prior resale price maintenance 

proponents used to rely. See, e.g., 8 Areeda ¶1631a, at 

350–352 (listing “‘[t]raditional’ justifications” for resale

price maintenance).

The one arguable exception consists of the majority’s

claim that “even absent free riding,” resale price maintenance “may be the most efficient way to expand the manufacturer’s market share by inducing the retailer’s performance and allowing it to use its own initiative and 

experience in providing valuable services.” Ante, at 12. I 

cannot count this as an exception, however, because I do 

not understand how, in the absence of free-riding (and 

assuming competitiveness), an established producer would 

need resale price maintenance. Why, on these assumptions, would a dealer not “expand” its “market share” as 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 15 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

best that dealer sees fit, obtaining appropriate payment 

from consumers in the process? There may be an answer

to this question. But I have not seen it. And I do not 

think that we should place significant weight upon justifications that the parties do not explain with sufficient

clarity for a generalist judge to understand. 

No one claims that the American economy has changed 

in ways that might support the majority. Concentration in 

retailing has increased. See, e.g., Brief for Respondent 18

(since minimum resale price maintenance was banned 

nationwide in 1975, the total number of retailers has 

dropped while the growth in sales per store has risen); 

Brief for American Antitrust Institute as Amicus Curiae 

17, n. 20 (citing private study reporting that the combined 

sales of the 10 largest retailers worldwide has grown to

nearly 30% of total retail sales of top 250 retailers; also

quoting 1999 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development report stating that the “‘last twenty years

have seen momentous changes in retail distribution including significant increases in concentration’”); Mamen,

Facing Goliath: Challenging the Impacts of Supermarket 

Consolidation on our Local Economies, Communities, and 

Food Security, The Oakland Institute, 1 Policy Brief, No. 

3, pp. 1, 2 (Spring 2007), http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/pdfs/facing_goliath.pdf (as visited June 25, 2007, 

and available in Clerks of Court’s case file) (noting that 

“[f]or many decades, the top five food retail firms in the 

U. S. controlled less than 20 percent of the market”; from

1997 to 2000, “the top five firms increased their market

share from 24 to 42 percent of all retail sales”; and “[b]y 

2003, they controlled over half of all grocery sales”). That 

change, other things being equal, may enable (and motivate) more retailers, accounting for a greater percentage of 

total retail sales volume, to seek resale price maintenance, 

thereby making it more difficult for price-cutting competitors (perhaps internet retailers) to obtain market share. 
16 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v.

 PSKS, INC. 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

Nor has anyone argued that concentration among manufacturers that might use resale price maintenance has

diminished significantly. And as far as I can tell, it has 

not. Consider household electrical appliances, which a

study from the late 1950’s suggests constituted a significant portion of those products subject to resale price maintenance at that time. See Hollander, United States of 

America, in Resale Price Maintenance 67, 80–81 (B. 

Yamey ed. 1966). Although it is somewhat difficult to 

compare census data from 2002 with that from several 

decades ago (because of changes in the classification system), it is clear that at least some subsets of the household 

electrical appliance industry are more concentrated, in 

terms of manufacturer market power, now than they were

then. For instance, the top eight domestic manufacturers 

of household cooking appliances accounted for 68% of the 

domestic market (measured by value of shipments) in 

1963 (the earliest date for which I was able to find data), 

compared with 77% in 2002. See Dept. of Commerce, 

Bureau of Census, 1972 Census of Manufacturers, Special 

Report Series, Concentration Ratios in Manufacturing, No. 

MC72(SR)–2, p. SR2–38 (1975) (hereinafter 1972 Census);

Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 2002 Economic 

Census, Concentration Ratios: 2002, No. EC02–31SR–1, 

p. 55 (2006) (hereinafter 2002 Census). The top eight 

domestic manufacturers of household laundry equipment 

accounted for 95% of the domestic market in 1963 (90% in

1958), compared with 99% in 2002. 1972 Census, at SR2– 

38; 2002 Census, at 55. And the top eight domestic manufacturers of household refrigerators and freezers accounted for 91% of the domestic market in 1963, compared 

with 95% in 2002. 1972 Census, at SR2–38; 2002 Census, 

at 55. Increased concentration among manufacturers 

increases the likelihood that producer-originated resale 

price maintenance will prove more prevalent today than in

years past, and more harmful. At the very least, the 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 17 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

majority has not explained how these, or other changes in 

the economy could help support its position. 

In sum, there is no relevant change. And without some 

such change, there is no ground for abandoning a wellestablished antitrust rule. 

B 

With the preceding discussion in mind, I would consult

the list of factors that our case law indicates are relevant 

when we consider overruling an earlier case. JUSTICE 

SCALIA, writing separately in another of our cases this

Term, well summarizes that law. See Wisconsin Right to 

Life, Inc., ante, at 19–21. (opinion concurring in part and 

concurring in judgment). And every relevant factor he

mentions argues against overruling Dr. Miles here. 

First, the Court applies stare decisis more “rigidly” in 

statutory than in constitutional cases. See Glidden Co. v. 

Zdanok, 370 U. S. 530, 543 (1962); Illinois Brick Co., 431 

U. S., at 736. This is a statutory case. 

Second, the Court does sometimes overrule cases that it 

decided wrongly only a reasonably short time ago. As 

JUSTICE SCALIA put it, “[o]verruling a constitutional case 

decided just a few years earlier is far from unprecedented.” Wisconsin Right to Life, ante, at 19 (emphasis 

added). We here overrule one statutory case, Dr. Miles, 

decided 100 years ago, and we overrule the cases that 

reaffirmed its per se rule in the intervening years. See, 

e.g., Trenton Potteries, 273 U. S., at 399–401; Bausch & 

Lomb, 321 U. S., at 721; United States v. Parke, Davis & 

Co., 362 U. S. 29, 45–47 (1960); Simpson v. Union Oil Co. 

of Cal., 377 U. S. 13, 16–17 (1964).

Third, the fact that a decision creates an “unworkable” 

legal regime argues in favor of overruling. See Payne v. 

Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 827–828 (1991); Swift & Co. v. 

Wickham, 382 U. S. 111, 116 (1965). Implementation of 

the per se rule, even with the complications attendant the 
18 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v.

 PSKS, INC. 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

exception allowed for in United States v. Colgate & Co., 

250 U. S. 300 (1919), has proved practical over the course 

of the last century, particularly when compared with the

many complexities of litigating a case under the “rule of 

reason” regime. No one has shown how moving from the 

Dr. Miles regime to “rule of reason” analysis would make 

the legal regime governing minimum resale price maintenance more “administrable,” Wisconsin Right to Life, ante, 

at 20 (opinion of SCALIA, J.), particularly since Colgate

would remain good law with respect to unreasonable price

maintenance. 

Fourth, the fact that a decision “unsettles” the law may

argue in favor of overruling. See Sylvania, 433 U. S., at 

47; Wisconsin Right to Life, ante, at 20–21 (opinion of 

SCALIA, J.). The per se rule is well-settled law, as the 

Court itself has previously recognized. Sylvania, supra, at 

51, n. 18. It is the majority’s change here that will unsettle the law. 

Fifth, the fact that a case involves property rights or 

contract rights, where reliance interests are involved,

argues against overruling. Payne, supra, at 828. This 

case involves contract rights and perhaps property rights

(consider shopping malls). And there has been considerable reliance upon the per se rule. As I have said, Congress relied upon the continued vitality of Dr. Miles when 

it repealed Miller-Tydings and McGuire. Supra, at 12–13. 

The Executive Branch argued for repeal on the assumption that Dr. Miles stated the law. Ibid. Moreover, whole 

sectors of the economy have come to rely upon the per se 

rule. A factory outlet store tells us that the rule “form[s]

an essential part of the regulatory background against 

which [that firm] and many other discount retailers have 

financed, structured, and operated their businesses.” 

Brief for Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. as 

Amicus Curiae 5. The Consumer Federation of America 

tells us that large low-price retailers would not exist with-
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 19 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

out Dr. Miles; minimum resale price maintenance, “by 

stabilizing price levels and preventing low-price competition, erects a potentially insurmountable barrier to entry

for such low-price innovators.” Brief for Consumer Federation of America as Amicus Curiae 5, 7–9 (discussing, 

inter alia, comments by Wal-Mart’s founder 25 years ago

that relaxation of the per se ban on minimum resale price

maintenance would be a “‘great danger’” to Wal-Mart’s

then-relatively-nascent business). See also Brief for 

American Antitrust Institute as Amicus Curiae 14–15, and 

sources cited therein (making the same point). New distributors, including internet distributors, have similarly 

invested time, money, and labor in an effort to bring yet 

lower cost goods to Americans. 

This Court’s overruling of the per se rule jeopardizes

this reliance, and more. What about malls built on the 

assumption that a discount distributor will remain an

anchor tenant? What about home buyers who have taken 

a home’s distance from such a mall into account? What 

about Americans, producers, distributors, and consumers, 

who have understandably assumed, at least for the last 30

years, that price competition is a legally guaranteed way 

of life? The majority denies none of this. It simply says

that these “reliance interests . . . , like the reliance interests in Khan, cannot justify an inefficient rule.” Ante, at 

27. 

The Court minimizes the importance of this reliance, 

adding that it “is also of note” that at the time resale price 

maintenance contracts were lawful “‘no more than a tiny 

fraction of manufacturers ever employed’” the practice. 

Ibid. (quoting Overstreet 6). By “tiny” the Court means

manufacturers that accounted for up to “‘ten percent of 

consumer goods purchases’” annually. Ibid.. That figure

in today’s economy equals just over $300 billion. See 

Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstract

of the United States: 2007, p. 649 (126th ed.) (over $3 
20 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v.

 PSKS, INC. 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

trillion in U. S. retail sales in 2002). Putting the Court’s

estimate together with the Justice Department’s early

1970’s study translates a legal regime that permits all

resale price maintenance into retail bills that are higher

by an average of roughly $750 to $1000 annually for an

American family of four. Just how much higher retail bills 

will be after the Court’s decision today, of course, depends

upon what is now unknown, namely how courts will decide 

future cases under a “rule of reason.” But these figures

indicate that the amounts involved are important to

American families and cannot be dismissed as “tiny.” 

Sixth, the fact that a rule of law has become “embedded” 

in our “national culture” argues strongly against overruling. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U. S. 428, 443–444 

(2000). The per se rule forbidding minimum resale price

maintenance agreements has long been “embedded” in the 

law of antitrust. It involves price, the economy’s “‘central 

nervous system.’” National Soc. of Professional Engineers, 

435 U. S., at 692 (quoting Socony-Vacuum Oil, 310 U. S., 

at 226, n. 59). It reflects a basic antitrust assumption

(that consumers often prefer lower prices to more service).

It embodies a basic antitrust objective (providing consumers with a free choice about such matters). And it creates 

an easily administered and enforceable bright line, “Do

not agree about price,” that businesses as well as lawyers

have long understood.

The only contrary stare decisis factor that the majority

mentions consists of its claim that this Court has “[f]rom

the beginning . . . treated the Sherman Act as a commonlaw statute,” and has previously overruled antitrust precedent. Ante, at 20, 21–22. It points in support to State Oil 

Co. v. Khan, 522 U. S. 3 (1997), overruling Albrecht v. 

Herald Co., 390 U. S. 145 (1968), in which this Court had 

held that maximum resale price agreements were unlawful per se, and to Sylvania, overruling United States v. 

Arnold, Schwinn & Co., 388 U. S. 365 (1967), in which this 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 21 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

Court had held that producer-imposed territorial limits

were unlawful per se. 

The Court decided Khan, however, 29 years after 

Albrecht—still a significant period, but nowhere close to 

the century Dr. Miles has stood. The Court specifically 

noted the lack of any significant reliance upon Albrecht. 

522 U. S., at 18–19 (Albrecht has had “little or no relevance to ongoing enforcement of the Sherman Act”). 

Albrecht had far less support in traditional antitrust

principles than did Dr. Miles. Compare, e.g., 8 Areeda & 

Hovenkamp ¶1632, at 316–328 (analyzing potential harms

of minimum resale price maintenance), with id., ¶1637, at

352–361 (analyzing potential harms of maximum resale

price maintenance). See also, e.g., Pitofsky 1490, n. 17. 

And Congress had nowhere expressed support for 

Albrecht’s rule. Khan, supra, at 19. 

In Sylvania, the Court, in overruling Schwinn, explicitly

distinguished Dr. Miles on the ground that while Congress

had “recently . . . expressed its approval of a per se analysis of vertical price restrictions” by repealing the MillerTydings and McGuire Acts, “[n]o similar expression of

congressional intent exists for nonprice restrictions.” 433 

U. S., at 51, n. 18. Moreover, the Court decided Sylvania

only a decade after Schwinn. And it based its overruling 

on a generally perceived need to avoid “confusion” in the 

law, 433 U. S., at 47–49, a factor totally absent here. 

The Court suggests that it is following “the common-law

tradition.” Ante at 26. But the common law would not 

have permitted overruling Dr. Miles in these circumstances. Common-law courts rarely overruled wellestablished earlier rules outright. Rather, they would

over time issue decisions that gradually eroded the scope 

and effect of the rule in question, which might eventually

lead the courts to put the rule to rest. One can argue that 

modifying the per se rule to make an exception, say, for 

new entry, see Pitofsky 1495, could prove consistent with 
22 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v.

 PSKS, INC. 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

this approach. To swallow up a century-old precedent, 

potentially affecting many billions of dollars of sales, is 

not. The reader should compare today’s “common-law” 

decision with Justice Cardozo’s decision in Allegheny 

College v. National Chautauqua Cty. Bank of Jamestown, 

246 N. Y. 369, 159 N. E. 173 (1927), and note a gradualism 

that does not characterize today’s decision. 

Moreover, a Court that rests its decision upon economists’ views of the economic merits should also take account of legal scholars’ views about common-law overruling. Professors Hart and Sacks list 12 factors (similar to 

those I have mentioned) that support judicial “adherence 

to prior holdings.” They all support adherence to Dr. Miles 

here. See H. Hart & A. Sacks, The Legal Process 568–569 

(W. Eskridge & P. Frickey eds. 1994). Karl Llewellyn has

written that the common-law judge’s “conscious reshaping” of prior law “must so move as to hold the degree of 

movement down to the degree to which need truly 

presses.” The Bramble Bush 156 (1960). Where here is 

the pressing need? The Court notes that the FTC argues 

here in favor of a rule of reason. See ante, at 20–21. But 

both Congress and the FTC, unlike courts, are wellequipped to gather empirical evidence outside the context

of a single case. As neither has done so, we cannot conclude with confidence that the gains from eliminating the 

per se rule will outweigh the costs.

In sum, every stare decisis concern this Court has ever 

mentioned counsels against overruling here. It is difficult 

for me to understand how one can believe both that (1) 

satisfying a set of stare decisis concerns justifies overruling a recent constitutional decision, Wisconsin Right to 

Life, Inc., ante, at 19–21 (SCALIA, J., joined by KENNEDY 

and THOMAS, JJ., concurring in part and concurring in 

judgment), but (2) failing to satisfy any of those same 

concerns nonetheless permits overruling a longstanding 

statutory decision. Either those concerns are relevant or 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 23 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

they are not. 

* * * 

The only safe predictions to make about today’s decision 

are that it will likely raise the price of goods at retail and 

that it will create considerable legal turbulence as lower 

courts seek to develop workable principles. I do not believe that the majority has shown new or changed conditions sufficient to warrant overruling a decision of such

long standing. All ordinary stare decisis considerations 

indicate the contrary. For these reasons, with respect, I 

dissent.