In the case of United States v. International Harvester Company et al., 1926, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a corporation could be held liable for antitrust violations under the Sherman Act. The government accused International Harvester Company and several other corporations of conspiring to monopolize trade and commerce in agricultural machinery and implements across multiple states. The defendants argued that they were not guilty because their actions did not result in restraint of trade or monopoly as defined by law. The court ruled against International Harvester, upholding its conviction on charges of violating antitrust laws. It found that there was sufficient evidence to prove that these companies had indeed conspired to control prices and restrict competition within their industry, which constituted an illegal restraint on interstate commerce according to the Sherman Antitrust Act. This decision reaffirmed the federal government's authority to regulate corporate behavior in order to protect free market competition from being undermined by monopolistic practices.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. International Harvester Company et al., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found International Harvester guilty of violating anti-trust laws, was incorrect. The dissenters believed that there wasn't enough evidence to prove that the company had intended to create a monopoly or restrain trade in violation of the Sherman Act. They pointed out that simply having control over large portions of an industry does not necessarily equate to monopolistic practices if such control is achieved through fair competition and superior business acumen rather than unfair methods designed specifically to stifle competition. Furthermore, they contended that some level of restraint on trade can be considered normal and even necessary within competitive markets; therefore, only excessive or unreasonable restraints should be deemed illegal under antitrust law.