In the case of Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd. et al. v. United States in 1936, the Supreme Court ruled that a shipping company could not claim immunity from antitrust laws due to its status as an agent of the U.S government. The court held that while certain activities may be immune if they are performed under governmental authority or direction, this does not extend to all actions taken by such agents; specifically those which violate federal law and policy like anti-trust regulations. This decision reinforced the principle that no one is above the law and even entities acting on behalf of government must comply with legal standards.

In the dissenting opinion for Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd. et al. v. United States, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of law and an overreach by Congress into areas reserved to state jurisdiction under the Constitution. He contended that there was no constitutional basis for federal regulation of labor conditions in private businesses like shipbuilding or shipping unless they directly affected interstate commerce, which he did not believe this case demonstrated convincingly enough to warrant such intervention. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential implications on states' rights and individual liberties if Congress were allowed to regulate local activities based purely on their indirect effects on commerce between states.