In the case of Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., et al., 1980, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that there is no right to contribution among antitrust co-conspirators under federal law. The dispute arose when Texas Industries (TI) sued several cement manufacturers for price-fixing in violation of Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act after it was forced to pay higher prices for cement due to their alleged conspiracy. After settling with TI, some defendants sought contribution from other alleged co-conspirators who had not settled yet or paid less than their proportionate share of damages caused by the collusion. However, the court held that neither statute provided a right to contribution and declined to imply one as a matter of federal common law because it could potentially undermine private enforcement mechanisms established by Congress in these statutes.

In the dissenting opinion for Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., Justice Powell argued that the majority's decision to allow competitors to sue each other under antitrust laws was a significant departure from precedent and could have far-reaching implications for business competition in America. He contended that this ruling would encourage businesses to use litigation as a competitive weapon rather than focusing on improving their products or services. Furthermore, he expressed concern about the potential for frivolous lawsuits and excessive damages awards which could stifle innovation and economic growth. In his view, Congress did not intend for antitrust laws to be used in this way when it passed them over 100 years ago.