In the 1936 case of Matos v. Alonso Hermanos et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendants, a group of sugar companies based in Puerto Rico who were accused by plaintiff, Ramon L. Matos, for conspiring to monopolize and restrain trade within the island's sugar industry which was against Sherman Antitrust Act. The court found that there was no evidence supporting these allegations and dismissed them as mere speculation or conjecture without any factual basis. Furthermore, it held that even if such conspiracy existed, it would not violate federal antitrust laws because Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of United States and thus exempt from those laws under Insular Cases doctrine which states that full constitutional rights do not automatically extend to all areas under American control unless Congress has deemed them incorporated territories.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Matos v. Alonso Hermanos et al., 1936, argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the appeal was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant questions about jurisdiction and due process rights at stake in this case which warranted further examination by the Supreme Court. They contended that it was not clear whether Puerto Rico courts had properly exercised their authority over a foreign corporation or if they had violated its constitutional rights by doing so without sufficient notice or opportunity for defense. Therefore, these justices felt that dismissing this appeal outright denied an important opportunity to clarify these complex legal issues and potentially rectify any injustices done.