The defendants moved for summary judgment, and the lower courts agreed that the case should be summarily dismissed, on the grounds that Klor's was only one of hundreds of stores selling such goods; therefore, its elimination as a competitive factor did not substantially lessen competition in the general market – there was no public injury.

[5] The Court said, "Alleged in this complaint is a wide combination consisting of manufacturers, distributors, and a retailer" that drives Klor's "out of business as a dealer in the defendants' products.

In recognition of this fact, the Sherman Act has consistently been read to forbid all contracts and combinations which "tend to create a monopoly," whether "the tendency is a creeping one" or "one that proceeds at full gallop.

Professor James Rahl sees the Klor's case as posing a dilemma for the Supreme Court, which it dodged by refusing to explain its ruling.

Adoption of the first alternative would require confession that some antitrust prohibitions do not necessarily rest upon any clear danger to economic competition.

Moreover, it would require a finding that the lower court's conclusions were "clearly erroneous" as a matter of fact, and an affirmative demonstration, without benefit of anything in the record, that the alleged restraint did threaten competition.

"[11] In 1985 in Northwest Stationers v. Pacific Stationery & Printing Co., the Court held that not all boycotts which exclude competitors are subject to per se scrutiny.