In the 1908 case of Phoenix Bridge Company v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S. government, upholding its right to sue for damages under antitrust laws even if it was not directly involved in commerce related to those violations. The Phoenix Bridge Company had been part of a trust that controlled bridge construction contracts across several states and argued that since they were only indirectly connected with interstate commerce, they could not be held liable under federal law. However, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for a unanimous court, rejected this argument stating that any restraint on trade or monopolistic practices affecting interstate commerce fell within Congress's regulatory powers regardless of whether such activities were direct or indirect.

In the dissenting opinion for Phoenix Bridge Company v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the Sherman Act was not intended to cover every contract or combination which may indirectly affect commerce among states. He believed that Congress did not intend to interfere with state laws governing contracts and combinations within a single state unless they directly impacted interstate trade. In this case, he felt there was no evidence of such direct impact on interstate commerce by the defendants' actions in Pennsylvania alone. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of 'restraint of trade,' arguing it should only apply when competition is unduly suppressed or eliminated rather than merely affected as in this case where bidding processes were manipulated but still existed.