In the 1971 case Flood v. Kuhn, Major League Baseball player Curtis Flood challenged the sport's reserve clause, which essentially bound a player to their team indefinitely. After being traded without his consent, Flood sued MLB Commissioner Bowie Kuhn and all 24 team owners for violation of federal antitrust laws. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Kuhn and the team owners by a vote of 5-3, upholding baseball’s exemption from these laws based on its unique history and tradition. The court recognized that this decision was inconsistent with previous rulings related to other professional sports but maintained that any changes should be made through legislation rather than litigation. Despite losing his case, Flood's actions sparked significant change in professional sports contracts leading eventually to free agency.

In the dissenting opinion for Flood v. Kuhn, Justice Douglas argued that baseball should not be exempt from antitrust laws and that this exemption was a result of an error in interpretation by the court in previous cases. He contended that there is no legal basis or logical reason to treat baseball differently than other professional sports like football or basketball which are subject to these laws. Furthermore, he believed it was unfair and unjust for players who were traded without their consent and had no control over their careers due to the reserve clause system prevalent at the time. This system bound players indefinitely to their teams unless they were released or traded, effectively limiting player mobility within Major League Baseball (MLB). In his view, such practices constituted restraint of trade under federal law.