In the case of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company v. United States in 1926, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over import duties. The Goodyear company had imported rubber belting from its factory in Canada and claimed that it should be classified as "manufactures of hard rubber," which would carry a lower duty rate under the Tariff Act of 1913. However, U.S customs officials classified it as "other manufactures of rubber" with a higher duty rate. The court sided with the government's interpretation, ruling that while vulcanization did make rubber harder, this did not mean all vulcanized products could be considered 'hard' by definition for tariff purposes. Therefore, they upheld that Goodyear was liable for paying higher import duties.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company v. United States argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the Sherman Act, which was intended to prevent monopolies and promote competition. The dissenters believed that Goodyear had not violated this act because they did not have exclusive control over their market; there were other competitors who could potentially challenge them. They also disagreed with the majority's view on price-fixing, arguing that it is only illegal when it restricts trade or creates a monopoly, neither of which occurred in this case according to them. Furthermore, they contended that Goodyear’s actions were simply normal business practices aimed at maintaining profitability and competitiveness rather than an attempt to create a monopoly or restrain trade unfairly.