In the 1943 case Cornell Steamboat Co. v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a private company could not sue for damages under antitrust laws if it was part of an industry regulated by a federal agency and its rates were set by that agency. The Cornell Steamboat Company had sued several railroads, alleging they conspired to monopolize freight transportation in New York and drove steamboats out of business through predatory pricing practices. However, because both industries were regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), which approved their rates, the court held that any anti-competitive behavior would have been sanctioned by ICC regulations and therefore immune from antitrust action.

In the dissenting opinion for Cornell Steamboat Co. v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Cornell Steamboat Company was incorrect and inconsistent with existing laws and regulations regarding maritime commerce. The dissenting justices believed that the government had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as required by law in such cases of alleged monopoly or restraint of trade under Sherman Act. They contended that there were other plausible explanations for why certain companies dominated towing services on Hudson River which did not necessarily involve any illegal activities or unfair business practices from Cornell’s side. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes an "attempt to monopolize," arguing instead for a narrower definition based on intent rather than mere market dominance due to superior efficiency or quality service provision.