The United States Supreme Court case, UNITED STATES v. MIDSTATE HORTICULTURAL CO. et al., 1938, revolved around the interpretation of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 and its application to Midstate Horticultural Co., a company involved in handling fruits for resale. The government argued that Midstate was subject to marketing orders issued under this act which aimed at stabilizing fruit prices by controlling their supply in interstate commerce. However, Midstate contended they were exempt from these regulations as they only handled consigned fruits and did not own them outright - an argument based on their interpretation of "handlers" within the context of the act. The Supreme Court ruled against Midstate Horticultural Co., stating that regardless if a handler owns or merely possesses produce for sale, they are still subject to regulation under this law due to their role in affecting market conditions through control over supply volumes entering into trade channels.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. Midstate Horticultural Co. et al., argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 2(e) of the Clayton Act was too broad and could lead to unjust outcomes. The dissent contended that this section should only apply when a seller discriminates between buyers by offering services or facilities connected with resale, not when they provide different promotional materials to different buyers as part of their own marketing efforts. They believed that interpreting it otherwise would mean any difference in treatment between customers could be seen as illegal discrimination, which is not what Congress intended when drafting this law. Furthermore, they pointed out there was no evidence showing these differences had an adverse effect on competition - another requirement for finding a violation under Section 2(e). Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold charges against Midstate Horticultural Co.