In the case of Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 1984, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of enforcing an arbitration clause within a contract between two companies even when antitrust issues were involved. The dispute arose when Puerto Rico-based Soler Chrysler-Plymouth sued Japan's Mitsubishi Motors over allegations that it had violated both federal and Puerto Rican antitrust laws by coercing them into buying more cars than they could sell. However, their sales agreement included a clause requiring all disputes to be settled through arbitration in Japan under Japanese law. In its decision, the court held that there was nothing inherently wrong with resolving such disputes via international arbitration and that this did not undermine public policy or deprive courts of jurisdiction over antitrust matters.

In the dissenting opinion for Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to enforce an arbitration clause in an international commercial contract was a departure from established precedent and could potentially undermine U.S. antitrust laws. He expressed concern that allowing private arbitrators to decide complex issues of public policy would lead to inconsistent results and lack of accountability, as these decisions are not subject to judicial review or appeal. Furthermore, he pointed out that foreign arbitrators may not be familiar with U.S law or feel obliged to follow it, which could put American businesses at a disadvantage in disputes involving antitrust violations.