The U.S. Supreme Court case Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters et al., 1982, revolved around the issue of whether a labor union could sue a multi-employer association for alleged antitrust violations under Section 4 of the Clayton Act. The plaintiff, California State Council of Carpenters (CSCC), claimed that the defendant, Associated General Contractors (AGC), had conspired to restrain trade and monopolize commercial construction markets in certain parts of California by coercing third parties into not doing business with nonmember contractors or subcontractors who were paying wages at rates approved by CSCC's members. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of AGC stating that CSCC did not have standing to bring an action under Section 4 because it was neither a consumer nor competitor in the market where trade was allegedly restrained – prerequisites established by previous court rulings for plaintiffs seeking damages under this section. The court also noted potential difficulties related to identifying damages and apportioning them among potentially hundreds or thousands affected parties if they allowed such suits from indirect claimants like unions.

In the dissenting opinion for Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters et al., Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of standing under Section 4 of the Clayton Act. He argued that directness or indirectness should not be a factor in determining whether a plaintiff has suffered an antitrust injury and thus has standing to sue under this act. Instead, he believed that any party who suffers from anti-competitive behavior should have legal recourse regardless if they are directly or indirectly affected by it. Furthermore, he criticized the majority’s reliance on common-law proximate cause principles as inappropriate given Congress’ intent to create broad remedial legislation through passing the Clayton Act.