The U.S. Supreme Court case Copperweld Corp. et al. v. Independence Tube Corp., 1983, revolved around the issue of whether a parent company and its wholly-owned subsidiary could be charged with conspiring in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits certain business activities that federal government regulators deem to be anti-competitive or monopolistic practices. The court ruled in favor of Copperweld Corporation and its subsidiary Regal Tube Company, stating that they were incapable of conspiring as per Section 1 because they functioned as a single economic entity rather than separate entities capable of colluding against competition; therefore their actions did not fall under the purview of antitrust laws designed to prevent collusion between independent companies.

In the dissenting opinion for Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., Justice White, joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun, argued that the majority's decision to exempt parent-subsidiary conduct from Section 1 of the Sherman Act was a departure from precedent without sufficient justification. They contended that previous case law had established that corporations are capable of conspiring with their subsidiaries under antitrust laws. The dissenters believed this interpretation was consistent with Congress' intent when it enacted the Sherman Act - to prevent restraints on trade regardless of whether they were imposed by legally separate entities or divisions within a single corporation. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that intra-enterprise agreements do not pose a threat to competition; pointing out instances where such arrangements could indeed be anti-competitive in nature.