Given its policy of refusing to sell to retailers that discount its goods below suggested prices, petitioner, Leegin Creative Leather Products (hereinafter, Leegin), stopped selling to respondent, PSKS, Inc.'s store (hereinafter PSKS). PSKS filed suit, alleging that Leegin violated the antitrust laws by entering into vertical agreements with its retailers to set minimum resale prices. The District Court excluded expert testimony about Leegin's pricing policy's pro competitive effects on the ground thatcase law (Dr. Miles Medical Co.v.John D. Park & Sons Co.)made it illegal under 1of the Sherman Act for a manufacturer and its distributor to agree on the minimum price the distributor can charge for the manufacturer's goods. At trial, PSKS alleged that Leegin and its retailers had agreed to fix prices, but Leegin argued that its pricing policy was lawful under 1. The jury found for PSKS. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit declined to apply the rule of reason to Leegin's vertical price-fixing agreements and affirmed the trial court, finding thatDr. Miles'per serule rendered irrelevant any procompetitive justifications for Leegin's policy.

1) what was the reasoning of the court?

2) how did the court arrive at the decision?