In the United States v. Anderson, Clayton & Co., 1955, the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving antitrust laws and foreign commerce. The U.S government accused Anderson, Clayton & Co., an international cotton-selling company based in Texas, of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act by conspiring to fix prices and control competition in Mexico's cotton market. The company argued that its actions were not subject to American antitrust laws because they occurred outside of U.S territory. However, the court disagreed with this argument stating that if a monopoly abroad restrains trade within America or with American companies then it falls under jurisdiction of US law even though some operations are conducted overseas. This ruling established important precedent for future cases related to extraterritoriality and antitrust enforcement.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Anderson, Clayton & Co., Justice Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 22(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act. He argued that Congress intended to regulate futures contracts and not cash sales when it enacted this law. The justice believed that a broad interpretation would lead to an unwarranted intrusion into ordinary business transactions which are outside federal jurisdiction under commerce clause jurisprudence. Furthermore, he contended that such an expansive reading could potentially criminalize common commercial practices in commodity markets without clear legislative intent or guidance from Congress on how these provisions should be applied in practice.