The U.S. Supreme Court case Thomsen et al., Composing the Firm of Thomsen & Company, v. Cayser et al., Composing the Firm of Cayser, Irvine & Company, et al., 1916 revolved around a dispute between two shipping companies over alleged anti-competitive practices. The plaintiffs (Thomsen & Co.) accused the defendants (Cayser, Irvine & Co.) of violating antitrust laws by creating an exclusive agreement with sugar refiners that effectively prevented other shippers from transporting sugar from Hawaii to New York via Cape Horn. The court ruled in favor of the defendants on grounds that their actions did not constitute restraint of trade as defined under Sherman Antitrust Act because they were not monopolizing or attempting to monopolize any part of U.S.'s foreign commerce and thus it was beyond Congress's power to regulate such agreements made outside its jurisdiction.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Thomsen et al. v. Cayser et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found Thomsen & Company guilty of violating antitrust laws by participating in an international shipping trust, was incorrect. The dissenters believed that this interpretation of the Sherman Antitrust Act overstepped its intended boundaries and applied it too broadly to international commerce situations where U.S jurisdiction may not be clear-cut or appropriate. They contended that applying domestic antitrust law to such complex global business arrangements could potentially disrupt international trade relations and exceed Congress' original intent when passing the legislation. Furthermore, they disagreed with how evidence was handled during trial proceedings and felt there were procedural errors made by both lower courts.