In Marrone v. Washington Jockey Club (1912), the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, upholding a lower court's decision that private organizations have the right to exclude individuals from their premises without providing a reason. The plaintiff, Antonio Marrone, was an Italian immigrant and professional jockey who had been barred by the Washington Jockey Club from participating in its races. He sued for damages on grounds of discrimination and interference with his livelihood but both lower courts dismissed his claims. On appeal to the Supreme Court, he argued that as a licensed jockey he had legal rights to participate in any racecourse across America under federal law regulating interstate commerce; however, this argument was rejected by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who stated that being granted a license did not guarantee him access to every racetrack or override private property rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Marrone v. Washington Jockey Club, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a ban on an individual from a private racetrack. He argued that while private entities have the right to exclude individuals, this particular case involved more than just a simple contract dispute between two parties. The Washington Jockey Club held significant power and influence over horse racing in D.C., effectively controlling access to all tracks in the area. Therefore, banning someone from their premises was tantamount to excluding them from participating in horse racing entirely within D.C.. Holmes believed that such monopolistic control should be subject to greater scrutiny and regulation by law as it could lead towards abuse of power or unfair practices which would not serve public interest well.