The United States v. Standard Oil Company of California et al., 1946, was a landmark case in which the U.S Supreme Court ruled that Standard Oil Co. of California (Socal) and its subsidiary companies had violated antitrust laws by monopolizing the importation and distribution of petroleum products to Pacific Coast territories, including Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington State and Alaska. The court found that Socal's exclusive contracts with suppliers effectively barred other distributors from competing in these markets. As a result of this ruling, Socal was ordered to cease its anti-competitive practices and dissolve any agreements or arrangements that perpetuated this monopoly power.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Standard Oil Company of California et al., Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision was based on an overly broad interpretation of antitrust laws, particularly in relation to foreign trade. He contended that Congress did not intend these laws to apply globally and suggested that such application could have negative implications for U.S. foreign policy and economic interests abroad. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential conflicts with other nations' sovereignty rights if U.S.-based companies were penalized for actions taken under different legal systems overseas. In his view, it would be more appropriate to leave matters of international commerce regulation to diplomatic negotiations rather than judicial rulings.