In the United States v. Borden Company et al., 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a price-fixing scheme among dairy companies violated antitrust laws. The case involved several large dairies and milk distributors, including Borden Company, who had conspired to fix prices in Illinois and other Midwestern states during the Great Depression era. They argued their actions were justified under Section 3 of the Clayton Act which allowed for certain cooperative marketing activities by agricultural organizations. However, this argument was rejected by Justice Harlan Fiske Stone who delivered the opinion of court stating that these corporations could not be considered as farmers' cooperatives exempted from anti-trust regulations because they were profit-driven entities rather than farmer-controlled ones.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Borden Company et al., Justice McReynolds expressed concern that the majority's decision would lead to an overreach of federal power and a disruption of state rights. He argued that Congress did not have the authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate intrastate transactions, which he believed were at issue in this case. Furthermore, he contended that even if such authority existed, it should be exercised with restraint so as not to interfere with states' abilities to govern their own internal affairs. The justice also took issue with what he saw as an overly broad interpretation of "restraint of trade," arguing that it could potentially encompass any form of economic activity and thus give rise to unchecked federal control over private business operations.