In the 1922 case of Hart v. B.F. Keith Vaudeville Exchange, vaudeville performer Raymond Hart sued B.F. Keith Vaudeville Exchange and others for alleged violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by monopolizing vaudeville theaters and performance contracts in New England, thereby restricting his ability to find work as an independent artist. The Supreme Court ruled against Hart, stating that he failed to prove that the defendants' actions directly resulted in his inability to secure employment or caused him any specific harm beyond speculation or conjecture. Furthermore, it was noted that even if a monopoly existed among theater owners or booking agents within a particular region (which wasn't proven), this would not constitute a restraint on interstate commerce under federal antitrust laws unless such monopoly had direct control over trade between states.

In the dissenting opinion for Hart v. B.F. Keith Vaudeville Exchange et al., Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision that a vaudeville performer could not sue his employer for breach of contract after being fired without cause, arguing that it was an issue of state law rather than federal antitrust law. He contended that if there were any issues related to restraint of trade or monopolistic practices, they should be addressed separately from the contractual dispute between employee and employer. Furthermore, he believed that by allowing employers to terminate contracts at will without providing just cause or compensation violated basic principles of fairness and equity in labor relations.