The United States v. Standard Oil Co. of California case in 1971 revolved around the issue of whether a major oil company had violated antitrust laws by entering into contracts with ship owners that effectively excluded competitors from supplying fuel to those ships at specific ports along their routes. The U.S government argued that these agreements were anti-competitive and thus, illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act because they restricted competition for sales of bunker fuel (a type of diesel fuel used by shipping vessels). However, Standard Oil contended that its actions were justified as it was merely ensuring a steady demand for its product through long-term contracts which is common business practice. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Standard Oil stating there was no violation since the exclusive supply contracts did not amount to an unreasonable restraint on trade or commerce and therefore didn't infringe upon antitrust laws.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Standard Oil Co. of California, Justice Black disagreed with the majority's decision to apply antitrust laws to this case, arguing that these laws were not intended for such use. He contended that Congress did not intend for antitrust legislation to regulate or prohibit contracts between private businesses and government entities like the Department of Defense (DoD). The DoD had willingly entered into a contract with Standard Oil and other oil companies knowing it could potentially limit competition in certain regions overseas where U.S military was stationed. Therefore, he believed it was inappropriate to penalize Standard Oil under antitrust law when they were merely fulfilling a contractual obligation agreed upon by both parties involved. Furthermore, he argued that if there is any issue regarding potential anti-competitive behavior in such cases, it should be addressed through legislative action rather than judicial interpretation of existing statutes.