In the Rice et al. v. Board of Trade of the City of Chicago case in 1946, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a private organization such as The Board of Trade could not be compelled to provide its services to non-members under antitrust laws. This decision came after several grain merchants sued The Board for refusing them access to their "cash grain room," where most cash transactions for grains took place at that time. They argued this refusal was an unfair restraint on trade and violated antitrust laws since it limited competition by excluding potential competitors from important marketplaces. However, the court disagreed with this argument stating that while these practices may limit competition, they do not necessarily restrain trade or commerce among states which is what would make them illegal under federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for Rice et al. v. Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Justice Wiley Rutledge argued that the majority's decision to uphold a rule allowing members-only trading during certain hours was an improper interpretation and application of antitrust laws. He contended that this practice constituted a restraint on trade by limiting competition and excluding non-members from participating in these exclusive trading times, thereby violating Sherman Act provisions against monopolies or attempts to monopolize any part of commerce among states or with foreign nations. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that such practices were necessary for efficient market operation; instead, he believed they served only to protect member interests at others' expense. Lastly, Justice Rutledge expressed concern over potential abuse if such practices were allowed unchecked under law.