In the 1925 case Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange, President of the Odd-Lot Cotton Exchange of New York, Mr. Moore, sued the New York Cotton Exchange and others for alleged antitrust violations under the Sherman Act. The plaintiff claimed that defendants conspired to monopolize interstate trade by refusing to recognize or deal with any cotton futures contracts made on his exchange. However, Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendants stating that they were not engaged in a conspiracy but merely exercising their rights as private individuals to choose who they do business with and how they conduct it within legal limits set by law. Furthermore, it was held that there was no direct restraint on commerce since anyone could still buy or sell cotton without dealing through either exchange; hence no violation of federal antitrust laws occurred.

In the dissenting opinion for Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision to uphold a ban on off-exchange cotton futures contracts was misguided. He contended that such contracts were not inherently harmful or fraudulent and should be allowed as part of free trade in a capitalist society. Furthermore, he believed it was inappropriate for the court to make judgments about economic policy, which should be left up to lawmakers. Holmes also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of previous case law and felt they had overstepped their bounds by creating new legal principles without sufficient precedent or justification.