In the 1922 case Curtis, Collins & Holbrook Company v. United States (and twenty-three other cases), the Supreme Court ruled on a series of lawsuits related to import duties imposed by the U.S. government under the Tariff Act of 1913 and Emergency Tariff Act of 1921. The plaintiffs were various companies that imported merchandise from abroad and argued that they had been overcharged for customs duties due to an incorrect interpretation of these laws by customs officials. They sought refunds for what they believed were overpayments. The key issue was whether certain goods should be classified as "manufactures of metal" or "articles manufactured from metal." The distinction mattered because different tariff rates applied depending on how goods were classified. The Supreme Court sided with the government, ruling that it had correctly interpreted and applied both acts in assessing tariffs on imports based upon their classification as either manufactures or articles made from metals. As such, no refunds would be issued to those companies who felt they'd paid excessive amounts in import taxes.

In the dissenting opinion for Curtis, Collins & Holbrook Company v. United States, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Sherman Act and its application to this case. He argued that not all restraints on trade are illegal under this act; only those that unduly or unreasonably restrict competition should be considered unlawful. In his view, a company has a right to choose who it does business with and set terms for these transactions as long as they do not excessively limit market competition or create monopolies. The contracts in question did not meet these criteria according to him because they were merely exclusive dealing arrangements which are common in commerce and often necessary for businesses' survival rather than being anti-competitive agreements aimed at creating monopoly power. Therefore, he believed that such contracts should have been upheld by the court instead of being struck down.