Enacted by Congress in 1890, the Sherman Antitrust Act was the first federal law that prohibited business practices that were considered to be harmful to consumers, specifically those that were deemed to reduce marketplace competition.

The fact that the respondents are sovereign foreign entities is not reason to deny them the remedy of treble damages the U.S. Congress has afforded to any person negatively affected by violations of U.S. or international antitrust laws.

This Court has long recognized the rule that a foreign nation is generally entitled to prosecute any civil claim in the courts of the United States upon the same basis as a domestic corporation or individual might do.The majority reasoned that a foreign nation is entitled to pursue damages when it its business or property has suffered damages caused by another entities antitrust violations.

When a foreign nation conducts business in U.S. commercial markets, it can be victimized by anti-competitive practices in the same manner as a domestic U.S. State of private person.

In his dissent, Justice Burger stated that a foreign nations entitlement to bring damage actions in U.S. courts against domestic suppliers for alleged violations of antitrust laws was never considered when the Sherman and Clayton Acts were enacted, and that the Clayton and Sherman acts did not extend the right of person-hood to foreign powers.

[4] Chief Justice Burger indicated in his dissent his dismay at the majorities recognition of a foreign government as a person under the Clayton and Sherman antitrust laws, while also noting that the majority option conceded that the question of application of the Sherman and Clayton Acts to foreign governments was never considered at the time the laws were enacted.