The Supreme Court case of Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of California et al., 1971, revolved around the issue of whether a state could sue for damages under federal antitrust laws on behalf of its citizens as parens patriae (parent of the nation). The State of Hawaii alleged that several oil companies had conspired to restrain trade and monopolize petroleum products in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, causing economic harm to its residents. However, the court ruled against Hawaii with a 5-4 decision stating that while states have standing to bring suit for injuries sustained in their proprietary capacity or quasi-sovereign interests such as health and well-being, they do not have standing under federal antitrust laws solely as representatives for their citizens' economic welfare. Therefore, individual consumers must file lawsuits themselves rather than relying on state intervention.

In the dissenting opinion for Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of California, Justice Douglas argued that states should be allowed to sue on behalf of their citizens when they are harmed by antitrust violations. He believed that allowing such suits would serve as a powerful deterrent against monopolistic practices and protect consumers from harm. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that permitting these lawsuits would lead to excessive litigation or duplicate damages, arguing instead that it was unlikely given the high costs and risks associated with bringing an antitrust suit. In his view, denying states this right effectively left many victims without any recourse at all because individual consumers often lack the resources necessary to challenge large corporations in court.