Which Supreme Court case supported Roosevelt's trust-busting by dissolving a major railroad trust?

Which Supreme Court case supported Roosevelt's trust-busting by dissolving a major railroad trust?

• A. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States (1911)
• B. Northern Securities Co. v. United States (1904)
• C. United States v. E. C. Knight Co. (1895)
• D. Lochner v. New York (1905)

Answer: (B)

The main idea being tested is how the federal government used antitrust laws to break up powerful combinations that restrained interstate commerce, demonstrating aggressive trust-busting. Northern Securities Co. v. United States in 1904 is the case that best fits this description. The Northern Securities Company formed a holding company to control several major railroads in the Northwest, effectively coordinating routes and pricing to curb competition. The Supreme Court ruled that this arrangement violated the Sherman Antitrust Act because it restrained trade across state lines, and it ordered the dissolution of the railroad trust. This decision was a clear victory for Roosevelt’s anti-monopoly push, showing that the federal government could intervene to dismantle large-scale combinations that controlled essential industries. Context helps connect the idea to the era: Roosevelt sought to regulate big business and protect competition, and this ruling provided a concrete example of federal power being used to dissolve a major trust. Compare this to other cases from the period—some limited federal power in different ways or addressing other issues—yet Northern Securities stands out as the pivotal railroad trust-dissolution case that embodies the trust-busting approach.

The main idea being tested is how the federal government used antitrust laws to break up powerful combinations that restrained interstate commerce, demonstrating aggressive trust-busting.

Northern Securities Co. v. United States in 1904 is the case that best fits this description. The Northern Securities Company formed a holding company to control several major railroads in the Northwest, effectively coordinating routes and pricing to curb competition. The Supreme Court ruled that this arrangement violated the Sherman Antitrust Act because it restrained trade across state lines, and it ordered the dissolution of the railroad trust. This decision was a clear victory for Roosevelt’s anti-monopoly push, showing that the federal government could intervene to dismantle large-scale combinations that controlled essential industries.

Context helps connect the idea to the era: Roosevelt sought to regulate big business and protect competition, and this ruling provided a concrete example of federal power being used to dissolve a major trust. Compare this to other cases from the period—some limited federal power in different ways or addressing other issues—yet Northern Securities stands out as the pivotal railroad trust-dissolution case that embodies the trust-busting approach.