In the United States Supreme Court case of United Copper Securities Company et al. v. Amalgamated Copper Company et al., 1916, the court ruled in favor of Amalgamated Copper and its associates who were accused by United Copper Securities and others for conspiring to monopolize trade and commerce in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants had manipulated copper prices through a series of transactions designed to control production, distribution, and sale within certain territories; however, they failed to provide sufficient evidence supporting their claims. The court held that mere size or resources does not constitute an illegal monopoly unless it is accompanied by an intent or purpose to restrain trade or create a monopoly which was not proven here. Furthermore, it was noted that some degree of restraint on competition may be permissible if done as part of normal business operations rather than with malicious intent.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United Copper Securities Company v. Amalgamated Copper Company argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the complaint was incorrect, as it failed to consider whether or not there had been a violation of anti-trust laws. The dissenters believed that if an organization is formed with the intent and purpose of suppressing competition and controlling prices, then this constitutes a restraint on trade and should be considered illegal under antitrust legislation. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted "direct" versus "indirect" effects on commerce, arguing that any action which significantly impacts interstate commerce should fall within federal jurisdiction regardless of how direct or indirect its effect may be. Furthermore, they contended that even if some aspects were beyond federal control due to state rights issues, this did not mean all parts were immune from scrutiny under federal law.