In the case of Aluminum Company of America v. United States, 1937, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract between two companies violated antitrust laws. The Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa) had entered into an agreement with Aluminium Limited that divided up global markets for aluminum products and set prices. The government argued this constituted illegal restraint on trade under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Alcoa countered by claiming it was not in violation as its actions did not have any direct effect on commerce within the United States. The court ruled against Alcoa stating that even though their operations were outside US borders, they still affected domestic commerce due to their significant market share and thus fell under jurisdiction of American antitrust law. This decision established important precedent regarding extraterritorial application of U.S antitrust laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Aluminum Company of America v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Alcoa on antitrust grounds was incorrect. The dissenters believed that Alcoa had not violated any laws by acquiring and maintaining its dominant position in the aluminum market through legitimate business practices such as innovation and efficiency, rather than through anti-competitive behavior. They contended that punishing a company for simply being successful would discourage competition and harm consumers in the long run. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies between this case’s interpretation of antitrust law with previous cases where companies were allowed to maintain their monopolies if achieved without unfair practices or intent to monopolize.