In the case of United States v. Chase National Bank, 1919, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a national bank could be held liable for damages under federal antitrust laws for its role in facilitating an alleged monopoly by purchasing and holding stock in two competing railroad companies on behalf of one company's president. The government argued that this action violated the Sherman Antitrust Act because it created a restraint of trade and monopolistic control over interstate commerce. However, the court ruled against the government stating that banks were not subject to these laws when acting as agents or trustees unless they had direct control over policy decisions leading to anti-competitive behavior. In this instance, Chase National Bank did not have such control; hence it couldn't be held responsible for any violation of antitrust law.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Chase National Bank case argued that the majority's ruling was a misinterpretation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The dissenters believed that there was no violation of antitrust laws because Chase National Bank did not have monopoly power, nor were they attempting to create one. They contended that banks should be allowed to merge and consolidate as long as it does not result in monopolistic practices or restrain trade unfairly. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on competition, arguing instead for a more nuanced understanding where some level of cooperation between businesses is necessary for economic stability and growth. Thus, according to them, such mergers could actually promote rather than hinder competition by creating stronger institutions capable of providing better services.