The United States Navigation Co., Inc. v. Cunard Steamship Co., Ltd, et al case in 1931 revolved around the issue of whether a group of British steamship companies had violated U.S anti-trust laws by forming an agreement to fix and maintain rates for transatlantic shipping services. The plaintiff, United States Navigation Company, alleged that this agreement was detrimental to their business as it created unfair competition. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants (the British steamship companies). The court held that foreign corporations engaged in commerce with other countries were not subject to American antitrust legislation unless they were involved directly or indirectly in interstate trade within America itself.

In the dissenting opinion for United States Navigation Co., Inc. v. Cunard Steamship Co., Ltd., et al, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold a shipping conference agreement was incorrect as it violated anti-trust laws designed to prevent monopolies and protect competition in commerce. He contended that such agreements could lead to price-fixing and market manipulation, which are detrimental to free trade principles upheld by U.S law. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of 'direct' versus 'indirect' effects on commerce; arguing that even indirect impacts can be significant enough to warrant legal intervention under antitrust laws.