In the case of Aikens v. Wisconsin in 1904, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving labor unions and their right to strike. The plaintiff, Edward P. Aikens, was an employee of Allis-Chalmers Company who participated in a strike organized by his union due to wage disputes. He was subsequently fired for his participation and sued the state of Wisconsin under claims that he had been denied equal protection under law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The court held that there were no constitutional violations involved in this case because states have broad powers over economic regulations within their borders unless they infrally upon specific federal protections or rights granted by constitution - which did not apply here since private employment contracts are generally governed by state laws rather than federal ones. Furthermore, it upheld that employers have a right to terminate employees participating in strikes if such actions disrupt business operations; thus affirming Wisconsin's decision without any interference from federal courts or violation of individual rights protected under constitution.

In the dissenting opinion for AIKENS v. WISCONSIN, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision violated Aikens' constitutional rights. He contended that Wisconsin had no jurisdiction over a crime committed on Lake Michigan because it was federal territory under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution which grants Congress exclusive legislative authority over places purchased by consent of state legislatures for erecting forts, magazines, arsenals and other needful buildings. Therefore, he believed that only federal courts could try crimes committed in such areas. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of 'exclusive,' arguing instead that it meant absolute or complete control without any shared jurisdiction with states. Lastly, Justice Harlan emphasized his belief in upholding individual liberties against potential encroachments by states as an essential duty of Supreme Court justices.