In the case of United States v. United States Steel Corporation (1915), the U.S government accused the United States Steel Corporation of violating antitrust laws by monopolizing and restraining trade in steel manufacturing and distribution. The Supreme Court, however, ruled in favor of U.S. Steel, stating that size alone does not constitute a monopoly if there is no intent to restrain trade or suppress competition. The court held that while U.S. Steel did control a large portion of the market share for steel production and distribution at that time, it had not engaged in any anti-competitive practices nor attempted to drive out competitors from the market; hence its actions were not illegal under Sherman Antitrust Act provisions.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of United States v. United States Steel Corporation, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly apply antitrust law principles. The dissenting justices believed that U.S. Steel had indeed violated Sherman Antitrust Act by monopolizing and restraining trade in steel production and distribution markets across several states. They contended that U.S. Steel’s control over a significant portion of these markets constituted an unlawful monopoly, regardless of whether or not this power was used for predatory practices against competitors or consumers - a point which they felt the majority overlooked in their ruling favoring U.S. Steel Corporation on grounds of 'reasonable' business conduct rather than market dominance alone.