In the case of American Ship Building Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (1964), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the American Ship Building Company, determining that their temporary lockout of employees during a bargaining impasse was not an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act. The company had locked out its workers to exert economic pressure and hasten collective bargaining negotiations with unions representing its employees. The NLRB argued this action constituted an unfair labor practice as it discouraged union membership by causing hardship for workers while negotiations were ongoing; however, Justice Potter Stewart writing for majority held that employers could use lockouts as a legitimate tactic in negotiating disputes if they did not replace or permanently fire striking workers during such actions.

In the dissenting opinion for American Ship Building Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, Justice Goldberg argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of labor law and an overreach into legislative territory. He contended that Congress had intentionally left certain areas of labor relations unregulated to allow for flexibility in collective bargaining processes, including lockouts during negotiations. By ruling these actions as unfair labor practices, he believed the court was effectively rewriting legislation rather than interpreting it. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view on economic weapons in negotiation contexts; while they saw them as inherently harmful and coercive, Justice Goldberg viewed them as legitimate tools to balance power between employers and employees.