In the case of Texas Consolidated Theatres, Inc. v. Pittman in 1938, the U.S Supreme Court addressed a dispute over an anti-trust violation involving movie theaters in Texas. The plaintiff, Pittman, alleged that Texas Consolidated Theatres and other defendants had conspired to monopolize first-run motion picture exhibitions within Dallas County by entering into exclusive contracts with film distributors which prevented independent operators like himself from accessing new films for their venues. He sought damages under federal antitrust laws. The lower court ruled in favor of Pittman but on appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, this decision was reversed due to lack of evidence showing any interstate commerce impact as required by Sherman Antitrust Act. However, when brought before the Supreme Court it held that there was sufficient proof demonstrating how such practices could affect interstate commerce thus violating antitrust laws. It concluded that even though movies were shown locally at theatres after being shipped across state lines they still constituted part of interstate trade and hence subject to federal regulation. Therefore,the judgement from circuit court was reversed and remanded back for further proceedings consistent with its opinion thereby siding with Pittman's claim against Texas Consolidated Theatres' monopolistic practices.

In the dissenting opinion for Texas Consolidated Theatres, Inc. v. Pittman, Justice Black disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a state law that allowed film distributors to be sued by independent movie theater owners who were denied access to films due to exclusive contracts between major studios and larger theaters. He argued that this law was unconstitutional because it interfered with private contractual relationships and violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, he contended that such legislation should not be used as a means of regulating competition in business or redistributing wealth among different classes of people. Instead, he believed these issues should be addressed through other legal mechanisms or social policies rather than judicial intervention.