In the United States v. Kissel and Harned case of 1910, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter related to conspiracy under federal law. The defendants, Henry H. Rogers, William G. Rockefeller, Charles M Pratt and others were indicted for conspiring to monopolize interstate commerce in petroleum products by acquiring control over various pipelines and refineries through their company Standard Oil Company of New Jersey (now ExxonMobil). Two defendants - Benjamin Brewster Kissel and John D Archbold - appealed against their conviction arguing that they could not be charged with conspiracy as they did not directly participate in illegal activities but merely executed orders from superiors. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions stating that an employee who knowingly implements an unlawful corporate policy can be held liable for conspiracy even if he is simply following instructions from his employer or superior officers within the corporation. This ruling established important legal precedent regarding corporate responsibility and individual liability within corporations.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Kissel and Harned, Justice Harlan argued that the defendants were not guilty of conspiracy to monopolize interstate commerce under the Sherman Antitrust Act because they did not have a specific intent to restrain trade or competition. He believed that their actions were merely part of normal business operations and practices, rather than an attempt to create a monopoly. Furthermore, he contended that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to prove otherwise. The majority's interpretation of the law would criminalize ordinary business activities and put undue burden on businesses trying to operate within legal boundaries according to him.