The U.S. Supreme Court case Interstate Circuit, Inc., et al. v. United States in 1937 revolved around an alleged violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act by Interstate Circuit, a company that owned several first-run movie theaters in Texas and Oklahoma. The company had proposed two conditions to eight film distributors: they should not allow second-run theaters to show films at lower prices and they must maintain minimum admission prices for their movies at all times. These proposals were accepted by the distributors even though no formal agreement was signed between them. The government argued that this constituted a conspiracy to fix prices and restrict trade, which is illegal under antitrust laws. The defendants countered that there was no explicit agreement among them; hence it could not be considered as price-fixing or restraint of trade. However, the Supreme Court ruled against Interstate Circuit stating that even if there wasn't any direct evidence of an explicit agreement among the parties involved, their simultaneous acceptance of these terms indicated tacit collusion which violated antitrust laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States, Justice McReynolds argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove a conspiracy among the defendants to violate antitrust laws. He contended that the majority's decision relied on mere assumptions and inferences rather than concrete proof of an agreement between parties involved. The justice also expressed concern over potential harm to business practices if such loose interpretations were allowed as precedent, suggesting it could lead companies into legal trouble based on innocent actions or coincidences misinterpreted as collusion. Furthermore, he criticized the government's handling of this case by not providing enough time for proper investigation and defense preparation before trial proceedings began.