In the 1917 case of Lee Wilson & Company v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a private corporation could be held liable for damages caused by flooding due to their construction activities on public lands. The plaintiff, Lee Wilson & Company, had built levees on its property which resulted in flood damage to neighboring properties owned by the federal government. The U.S., seeking compensation for this damage, sued under an 1899 law prohibiting unauthorized obstructions or alterations of navigable waters without Congressional approval. The court ruled in favor of the United States and upheld that corporations can indeed be held responsible for such damages. They found that even though Lee Wilson & Co.'s actions were not directly altering any navigable waterways (the statute's primary concern), they still indirectly affected them through increased flooding risks and thus fell within purview of the law. This decision established important precedent regarding corporate liability for environmental harm and interpretation of laws protecting public resources.

In the dissenting opinion for Lee Wilson & Company v. United States, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and its application to labor unions. He argued that Congress did not intend for this act to apply to labor organizations when it was enacted in 1890. Furthermore, he contended that such an interpretation would lead to absurd results as every strike or boycott could potentially be seen as a violation of antitrust laws under this broad reading of the statute. He also pointed out inconsistencies in how courts had previously interpreted and applied these laws, suggesting a lack of clear legal precedent supporting their use against unions. Lastly, he expressed concern about potential negative impacts on workers' rights if they were unable to organize and negotiate collectively without fear of prosecution under antitrust legislation.