WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Another day at the U.S. Supreme Court, another decision in favor of business, it seems.

The USSC today ruled, by a 5-4 margin, to allow agreements between manufacturers and retailers to set minimum retail prices for products. A 1911 USSC opinion declared such arrangements illegal under federal anti-trust law.

But in Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc. v. PSKS Inc. (docket# 06-480) over-ruled both this precedent and a federal appeals court ruling in favor of PSKS. That company's retail outlets had been sued for offering Leegin goods for sale at below suggested retail prices.

The federal appeals court ruling upheld a lower court ruling that awarded PSKS $3.6 million in damages and $375,000 in legal fees.

But the Supreme Court agreed with business groups that minimum-price laws are no longer feasible and that some retail floor-price arrangements can spur competition. Restrictions on them "should be subject to the rule of reason," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy.

"To the extent consumers demand cheap goods, judging vertical-price restraints under the rule of reason will not prevent the market from providing them," Kennedy added.

But the four-judge minority dissenting opinion, written by Justice Stephen Breyer for Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said the majority opinion lacked sufficient grounds to overturn a long-standing precedent.

Breyer wrote that the majority's ruling "will likely raise the price of goods at retail ... and will create considerable legal turbulence as lower courts seek to develop workable principles."

The ruling is expected to crimp the ability of larger retailers like Wal-Mart and Target to offer in-store discounts, according to some reports.

Nonetheless, the ruling represents a fourth big victory for business at the USSC in less than a month. Most recently the USSC ruled to allow "issue ads" funded by interest groups to air close to elections.