In the case of Wallace et al. v. Cutten, 1935, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving commodity futures trading and market manipulation. Arthur W. Cutten was a prominent trader who had been accused by federal authorities of manipulating wheat prices in violation of the Grain Futures Act (now known as the Commodity Exchange Act). The court held that even though Cutten's trades were executed through brokers rather than directly with other traders, they still constituted illegal manipulation under the law because he intended to influence market prices artificially for his own benefit. This ruling clarified that indirect transactions could be considered manipulative if they distorted normal supply-demand dynamics in commodity markets.

In the dissenting opinion for Wallace et al. v. Cutten, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a conviction under the Grain Futures Act of 1922. He argued that this law was unconstitutional because it interfered with private business transactions and exceeded Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. According to him, futures contracts were not inherently harmful or immoral; they served as a legitimate method of managing risk in agriculture and other industries. Furthermore, he contended that such contracts did not directly affect interstate commerce since they involved potential future sales rather than immediate transfers of goods across state lines. Therefore, he believed that regulating them fell outside Congress' constitutional authority.