In Nash v. United States (1912), the US Supreme Court upheld a conviction under the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prohibits certain business activities that reduce competition in the marketplace. The defendant, John C. Nash, was part of a group of lumber retailers who agreed to fix prices and divide territories among themselves in violation of this act. In his defense, Nash argued that there was no explicit language in the law prohibiting such agreements and thus he could not be held criminally liable for his actions. However, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for a unanimous court, rejected this argument stating that while it is true that some conduct may be so clearly harmful to society yet not explicitly prohibited by statute as to warrant criminal punishment; an agreement to stifle competition falls within those boundaries even if it's not specifically mentioned in legislation because its damaging effects on commerce are well recognized.

In the dissenting opinion for Nash v. United States, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Sherman Act. He argued that it was not enough to simply have a general intent to restrain trade; there must be specific intent and knowledge of how one's actions would affect interstate commerce. He also contended that vague laws should not be used as a basis for criminal charges, stating that "a law which punished conduct which would not be blameworthy in the average member of the community would be too severe." Furthermore, he believed that if Congress intended to make all agreements restraining trade illegal regardless of their reasonableness or unreasonableness, they should explicitly state so in clear terms rather than leaving it up to judicial interpretation.