Dissent

This case was ruled 7-1 in favor of the government. Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Mr. Justice Frankfurter dissented on the case. Frankfurter agreed with the studios that the District Court had not adequately explored the facts in the consent decree. "The framing of decrees should take place in the District rather than Appellate Courts. They are invested with large discretion to model their judgments to fit the exigencies of the particular case." He pointed to the Court decision, International Salt Co. v. United States that the lower courts are the proper place for such findings of fact, to be deferred by the higher courts. He reminded the Court that the District Court had 15 months to consider the case and reviewed almost 4,000 pages of evidence. "I cannot bring myself to conclude that the product of such a painstaking process of adjudication as to a decree appropriate for such a complicated situation as this record discloses was an abuse of direction." Frankfurter was basically unhappy that the case made it to the Supreme Court in the first place. He felt that the case could have been handled by the District Court. He argued that the District Court showed a complete understanding of Sherman Law but did not use its discretion to make a decision.
(http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/paramountdoc_1948supreme.htm) (http://supreme.justia.com/us/334/131/case.html)