BIG by Matt Stoller has the article Why Are Judges Encouraging Inflation?

A conspiracy to raise prices can be understood as price-fixing, and price-fixing is a felony according to Section One of the Sherman Antitrust Act, passed in 1890. The statute says “Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce.. is declared to be illegal.” From the 1890s onward, explicit price-fixing with no other context except profiteering, was understood as illegal. What Unilever is doing, signaling of pricing moves in a concentrated industry, known as ‘tacit collusion,’ is potentially such a conspiracy. In the 1970s the Federal Trade Commission and judges considered that exchanging information while moving prices in concert was an illegal method of fixing prices.

But for years, courts have been loosening antitrust law, including those against price-fixing. In 2017, for instance, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case called Valspar Corp. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co, not only found that tacit collusion was legal, but that in the case of a concentrated industry, it’s rational. And so they wouldn’t even let it get to a jury.

I knew that the courts were facilitating monopolies, but this article gives details that I had not known.

What’s also interesting here is the breakdown of ideology. Typically antitrust observers see conservatives as more hostile to antitrust enforcement, and progressives as more favorable to it. But in this case, that line didn’t hold. The Third Circuit is ideologically mixed. In the Valspar case, two out of three judges were appointed by George W. Bush, and one was appointed by Bill Clinton. With a 2-1 vote, the judges adopted a strong pro-big business posture, and the lone dissenter was one of the conservatives. The Ninth Circuit is considered a more progressive place, and the judges in this case were all appointed by Democrats – William A. Fletcher (Clinton), Johnnie B. Rawlinson (Clinton), and Cathy Ann Bencivengo (Obama). Fletcher in particular is known as a stalwart left-winger, with strong progressive views on the death penalty, immigration, free speech, the environment, gun control, gender equity, etc. And yet, on the question of big business, these progressive legal minds were in lockstep with the Fortune 500.