In the United States v. American Can Company case of 1929, the Supreme Court examined whether a corporation could be held criminally liable for antitrust violations. The American Can Company was accused of engaging in anti-competitive behavior by acquiring control over several competitors and thereby creating a monopoly in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The company argued that it could not be held crimically responsible because corporations were incapable of forming criminal intent - an essential element to establish guilt under most crimes at that time. However, the court rejected this argument and ruled that corporations can indeed commit crimes and should be held accountable if they violate federal laws such as those against monopolies or restraint on trade practices. This landmark decision established legal precedent for corporate liability in criminal cases, reinforcing accountability mechanisms within business operations.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. American Can Company, the justice disagreed with the majority's interpretation of antitrust laws and their application to this case. The justice argued that while it was clear that American Can Company had a monopoly in certain markets, there was no evidence presented to suggest they achieved or maintained this position through illegal means such as predatory pricing or collusion. Instead, he suggested that their success could be attributed to superior business acumen and efficiency which should not be penalized under antitrust law. He also expressed concern about how broadly the court interpreted "restraint of trade," arguing it could potentially stifle legitimate competition and innovation if applied too liberally in future cases.