In the 1936 case of Isbrandtsen-Moller Co., Inc. v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving shipping regulations and antitrust laws. The Isbrandtsen-Moller Company had challenged an order by the Federal Maritime Commission that allowed certain competitors to pool their resources in foreign trade routes under a common agreement, arguing it violated antitrust laws. However, the court upheld this order with a majority decision stating that such agreements were permissible under Section 15 of the Shipping Act of 1916 if they did not result in unreasonable decreases in service or increases in cost for shippers and consumers. The court also emphasized that these types of agreements should be closely monitored by regulatory bodies to prevent any potential abuse or violation of competition law.

In the dissenting opinion for Isbrandtsen-Moller Co., Inc. v. United States et al., Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision to uphold a federal law prohibiting ship owners from limiting their liability in case of negligence was an overreach of congressional power and violated principles of maritime law. He contended that this legislation interfered with freedom of contract, which he viewed as a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. Furthermore, he believed it would have negative implications on international commerce since such limitations on liability are common practice in other countries' shipping industries. In his view, if Congress could regulate these contracts so extensively, there would be no limit to its power over private business agreements.