In the case of Kansas et al. v. UtiliCorp United Inc., 1989, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of UtiliCorp United Inc., a natural gas company that had been sued by two states, Kansas and Missouri. The states argued that they were entitled to refunds from pipeline companies who had overcharged them for natural gas purchases due to price controls set during the energy crisis in the late 1970s and early 1980s. However, these costs had been passed on to consumers like UtiliCorp rather than absorbed by the states themselves. The court held that under federal law governing natural gas pricing disputes (the Natural Gas Policy Act), only direct purchasers from pipeline companies could claim refunds resulting from overcharges - not indirect purchasers such as utilities or their customers who bought gas at retail prices which included those overcharges.

In the dissenting opinion for Kansas et al. v. Utilicorp United Inc., Justice Blackmun, joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall, argued that the majority's decision to deny indirect purchasers standing in antitrust cases was a misinterpretation of legislative intent behind federal antitrust laws. They contended that these laws were designed to protect all consumers from anti-competitive practices, including those who did not directly purchase from an alleged violator but still suffered economic harm as a result of inflated prices passed down through distribution chains. The dissenters believed this interpretation was more consistent with previous court decisions and congressional policy objectives aimed at deterring illegal price-fixing conspiracies and ensuring broad-based recovery for all injured parties. They also expressed concern that denying indirect purchasers legal recourse could potentially allow monopolistic enterprises to retain ill-gotten gains without facing full liability for their actions.