The U.S. Supreme Court case Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Illinois Brick Co., 1935, revolved around a dispute over freight charges for the transportation of bricks by the railroad company from Illinois to Pennsylvania. The brick company had paid these charges under protest and later sued for recovery, claiming that they were unjust and unreasonable in violation of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA). The lower courts ruled in favor of the brick company but on appeal, this decision was reversed by the Supreme Court which held that it lacked jurisdiction to review rates fixed by state authorities unless there was an allegation or proof that such rates violated constitutional rights or federal law beyond what is provided in ICA itself.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Illinois Brick Co., 1935, argued that the majority's decision to deny recovery for indirect purchasers was inconsistent with previous rulings and could potentially undermine antitrust laws' effectiveness. The dissenters believed that denying indirect purchasers a right to sue would leave a significant portion of overcharge injuries uncompensated, thereby reducing deterrence against price-fixing conspiracies. They also pointed out practical difficulties in tracing overcharges through distribution chains and suggested this should not be an obstacle for victims seeking compensation from wrongdoers who have violated antitrust laws by engaging in illegal pricing practices.