In the 1913 case of International Harvester Company of America v. State of Missouri, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Missouri state law that prohibited corporations from owning or controlling more than one line of business within the state. The court ruled in favor of Missouri, stating that states have the right to regulate businesses operating within their borders and protect against monopolies if they believe it is necessary for public welfare. The International Harvester Company had been found guilty by lower courts for violating this law due to its control over multiple lines related to farming machinery production and distribution. In appealing these decisions, they argued that such laws violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights as corporations are considered persons under U.S law. However, Justice Mahlon Pitney delivered an opinion which rejected this argument on behalf of a unanimous court. He stated that while corporations do have some constitutional protections as legal 'persons', these do not extend to protection from all forms regulation aimed at preventing harmful business practices like creating monopolies.

In the dissenting opinion for International Harvester Company of America v. State of Missouri, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a fine against the company for violating antitrust laws was flawed. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant issues with how evidence had been presented and interpreted during trial proceedings. They contended that certain pieces of evidence should not have been admitted because they did not directly prove any violation on part of International Harvester Company but rather suggested possible misconduct by other entities associated with them. Furthermore, they disagreed with the interpretation of what constituted as an unlawful restraint on trade under state law, arguing that this definition had been applied too broadly in this case. In their view, simply having control over a large portion of market share or engaging in competitive business practices does not necessarily equate to illegal monopolistic behavior or unfair restriction on commerce.