In the case of United States v. International Boxing Club of New York, Inc., et al., 1954, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that professional boxing matches were subject to federal antitrust laws. The government had filed a suit against several organizations and individuals involved in promoting professional boxing matches, alleging they conspired to monopolize interstate trade and commerce in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. These entities controlled most championship bouts in various weight classes across America by owning or controlling arenas where these events took place and securing exclusive contracts with top boxers. The defendants argued that their activities did not constitute trade or commerce as defined under federal law because they were engaged in sports entertainment rather than business transactions involving goods or services. However, the court rejected this argument stating that while sporting events may be primarily for entertainment purposes, they also involve significant commercial activity such as selling tickets and broadcasting rights which fall within purview of antitrust laws.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. International Boxing Club of New York, Inc., Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to apply antitrust laws to professional boxing was a misinterpretation of legislative intent and an overreach of judicial power. He contended that Congress did not intend for these laws to regulate sports when they were enacted in 1890 and 1914, as evidenced by their lack of action on subsequent bills specifically aimed at including sports within their scope. Furthermore, he asserted that it is not the Court’s role to extend legislation into areas where Congress has chosen not to act. Instead, such decisions should be left up to lawmakers who are better equipped than judges at making policy choices about complex issues like this one. Therefore, he believed that applying antitrust laws in this case was inappropriate and exceeded judicial authority.