In the case of Appalachian Coals, Inc. et al. v. United States in 1932, the Supreme Court ruled on whether a collective selling arrangement by coal producers violated antitrust laws. The group of coal companies had formed a joint sales agency to sell and market their product collectively with an aim to stabilize prices and reduce competition among themselves during a period of economic instability. The government argued that this was an illegal restraint on trade under the Sherman Antitrust Act because it controlled output and fixed prices artificially high. The Supreme Court disagreed with the government's position, ruling 5-4 in favor of Appalachian Coals Inc., stating that while some restraints were present due to their cooperative marketing strategy, they did not amount to unreasonable or oppressive restraints on trade as prohibited by law considering broader economic circumstances at play including overproduction issues within industry itself. This decision marked one instance where courts showed leniency towards certain types of business cooperation during times when such arrangements could be seen as necessary for survival rather than simply anti-competitive behavior.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Appalachian Coals, Inc. v. United States, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision to allow a group of coal producers to collectively sell their product was in direct violation of anti-trust laws designed to prevent monopolies and protect competition. He contended that by permitting these companies to band together and control prices, they were effectively stifling competition and creating an unfair market advantage. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that this collective action was necessary due to unique circumstances within the coal industry at that time; instead asserting it set a dangerous precedent for other industries who might seek similar arrangements in future. In his view, such actions could lead towards economic instability as large corporations gained more power over markets while smaller businesses suffered under their dominance.