The U.S. Supreme Court case Fortner Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp., et al., 1968 dealt with the issue of tying arrangements and their legality under antitrust laws. The plaintiff, Fortner Enterprises, argued that the defendant, United States Steel Corporation (USSC), had violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by forcing them into a tied arrangement where they were required to purchase prefabricated houses from USSC's subsidiary in order to secure financing for a housing development project from another USSC subsidiary. The court ruled in favor of Fortner Enterprises stating that such tying arrangements are illegal if there is sufficient economic power over the tying product and if there is substantial potential impact on interstate commerce due to foreclosure of competition in the market for the tied product.

In the dissenting opinion for Fortner Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp., Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision expanded Section 1 of the Sherman Act beyond its intended scope and purpose. He contended that tying arrangements should only be considered illegal if they have a substantial impact on competition in a relevant market, which was not demonstrated in this case. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that U.S Steel had sufficient economic power to restrain trade or commerce due to their unique ability to offer financing terms as part of their package deal with Fortner Enterprises. Instead, he believed such financial capability did not necessarily equate to market dominance or anti-competitive behavior under antitrust laws.