October Term 2006 · Docket 06-480

Should courts apply the rule of reason to resale price maintenance?

Leegin argues the per se rule is outdated. PSKS argues it prevents harmful price fixing.

Official caption
Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Olson argued the per se rule is misguided and anticompetitive.

    Coykendall argued discouraging price cuts is bad antitrust policy.

    Hungar argued the Dr. Miles rule conflicts with modern jurisprudence.

    Underwood argued the agreement prevents discounts and price competition.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The dispute centers on how courts evaluate resale price maintenance agreements. Leegin seeks a flexible standard. PSKS seeks strict prohibition.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 26, 2007.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Leegin wants the Court to replace the per se rule with the rule of reason.

PSKS wants the Court to keep the per se rule for resale price maintenance.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Leegin argues the per se rule is outdated and anticompetitive.

PSKS argues the agreement prevents price competition among retailers.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Breyer asked how to decide when economists disagree on consumer impact.

Justice Stevens asked why to distinguish if the advocate admits per se unlawfulness.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case determines how courts evaluate vertical price agreements. It affects retail pricing strategies. It shapes antitrust enforcement standards.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON