The U.S. Supreme Court case American Sugar Refining Company v. United States in 1908 revolved around the Sherman Antitrust Act and its application to a sugar refining company that controlled approximately 98% of the refined sugar business in the country. The government argued that this constituted a monopoly, which was illegal under federal law. The American Sugar Refining Company countered by arguing it had not engaged in any unfair practices or attempts to restrain trade; rather, it had simply been successful due to superior efficiency and management. However, the court ruled against them stating that regardless of how they achieved their market dominance, having such control over an industry violated antitrust laws designed to promote competition and prevent monopolies from forming.

In the dissenting opinion for American Sugar Refining Company v. United States, it was argued that the Sherman Act should not be applied to restrain trade or commerce among several states unless such restraint directly and materially interferes with their freedom of commercial intercourse. The dissenting justices believed that a mere reduction in competition due to an increase in market share by one company does not necessarily equate to a direct restriction on trade or commerce. They contended that there must be clear evidence showing actual intent or action taken by the dominant company to restrict competitors' ability to operate freely within the marketplace before any violation of antitrust laws can be established. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority's interpretation of 'monopolize', arguing instead for its literal meaning - exclusive possession or control over something - rather than broadening it as having substantial market power which could potentially lead towards monopoly.