The U.S. Supreme Court case Algoma Plywood & Veneer Co. v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board in 1948 revolved around the issue of whether a state could regulate labor relations for employees involved in interstate commerce, which was typically under federal jurisdiction as per the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Algoma Plywood and Veneer Company had refused to bargain with a union that represented its workers, leading to intervention by the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board. The company argued this action violated their rights because they were engaged in interstate commerce and thus should be governed only by federal law (the NLRA), not state law. However, the Supreme Court ruled against them stating that although Congress has exclusive control over interstate commerce through NLRA, it did not intend to exclude states from providing additional or supplementary rules concerning labor disputes affecting interstate commerce where such regulation does not conflict with federal legislation or impede its operation.

In the dissenting opinion for Algoma Plywood & Veneer Co. v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, Justice Robert H. Jackson argued that the majority's decision undermined federal labor law by allowing states to intervene in labor disputes and enforce their own policies, which could potentially conflict with national standards set by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). He contended that this interpretation of state power was inconsistent with previous Supreme Court rulings and would create confusion and inconsistency in labor relations across different states. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential infringement on workers' rights to self-organization and collective bargaining as protected under federal law if states were allowed to impose their own regulations on these matters without regard for national policy or precedent.