Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf
Page Number: 29.0

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

25 

Opinion of the Court 

defendant  to  show  a  procompetitive  rationale  for  the  re-
straint.”  Ibid.  If  the  defendant  can  make  that  showing,
“the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to demonstrate that
the  procompetitive  efficiencies  could  be  reasonably
achieved through less anticompetitive means.”  Id., at ___– 
___ (slip op., at 9–10). 

These three steps do not represent a rote checklist, nor
may they be employed as an inflexible substitute for careful 
analysis.  As  we  have  seen,  what  is  required  to  assess 
whether a challenged restraint harms competition can vary
depending on the circumstances.  See supra, at 15–19.  The 
whole point of the rule of reason is to furnish “an enquiry
meet for the case, looking to the circumstances, details, and
logic of a restraint” to ensure that it unduly harms compe-
tition before a court declares it unlawful.  California Dental, 
526 U. S., at 781; see also, e.g., Leegin Creative, 551 U. S., 
at 885 (“ ‘[T]he factfinder weighs all of the circumstances of 
a case in deciding whether a restrictive practice should be
prohibited as imposing an unreasonable restraint on com-
petition’ ”); Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 
467 U. S. 752, 768 (1984); 7 Areeda & Hovenkamp ¶1507a,
at 442–444 (slightly different “decisional model” using se-
quential questions).

In the proceedings below, the district court followed cir-
cuit precedent to apply a multistep framework closely akin 
to American Express’s.  As its first step, the district court
required the student-athletes to show that “the challenged 
restraints produce significant anticompetitive effects in the 
relevant market.”  D. Ct. Op., at 1067.  This was no slight 
burden.  According to one amicus, courts have disposed of
nearly all rule of reason cases in the last 45 years on the 
ground that the plaintiff failed to show a substantial anti-
competitive effect.  Brief for 65 Professors of Law, Business, 
Economics,  and  Sports  Management  as  Amici  Curiae  21, 
n. 9 (“Since 1977, courts decided  90% (809 of 897) on this 
ground”).  This  suit  proved  different.  As  we  have  seen,