In the 1928 case of International Shoe Company v. Pinkus et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pinkus, upholding a lower court's decision that International Shoe Company had violated anti-trust laws by attempting to monopolize trade and commerce among several states. The company was accused of engaging in unfair competition through its practice of selling shoes directly to consumers at retail prices while also supplying them wholesale to retailers. This dual role as both wholesaler and retailer allegedly allowed it to undercut competitors' pricing strategies, thereby stifering competition. The Supreme Court agreed with this assessment, finding that such practices constituted an unlawful restraint on trade under Section 3 of the Clayton Act.

In the dissenting opinion for International Shoe Company v. Pinkus et al., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting corporations from selling stock without first obtaining permission from a state official, violated constitutional rights. The dissenting justices believed this law infringed on the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause by allowing an arbitrary and potentially biased government official to control private business transactions. They also contended that such regulation could lead to corruption or favoritism, as officials might grant or deny permissions based on personal interests rather than objective criteria. Furthermore, they suggested that this kind of legislation would discourage businesses from operating in states with similar laws, thereby negatively affecting those states' economies. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's view that such laws were necessary to protect public interest against fraudulent securities sales.