In the case of United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 1967, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court's ruling that found the United Shoe Machinery Corporation guilty of monopolizing trade and commerce in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The corporation had been leasing shoe machinery to manufacturers under restrictive terms which prevented them from using competitors' products. This effectively eliminated competition and allowed for control over prices, constituting an illegal monopoly. The Supreme Court rejected arguments by United Shoe that it was not stifling competition but rather promoting efficiency through its business model, affirming that such practices were indeed anti-competitive and violated antitrust laws.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp case argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of antitrust laws and an incorrect application of legal principles to the facts presented. The dissenters believed that there was no evidence to suggest that United Shoe had engaged in monopolistic practices or attempted to stifle competition, as they were simply offering better products at lower prices due to their superior efficiency and innovation. They also disagreed with the majority's view that leasing machinery constituted an illegal tying arrangement, arguing instead it was a legitimate business strategy which benefited customers by reducing costs and risks associated with purchasing expensive equipment outright. Furthermore, they contended that breaking up United Shoe would not promote competition but rather harm consumers by leading to higher prices and inferior products.