The U.S. Supreme Court case Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader et al., 1939, revolved around a labor dispute between the hosiery company and its striking employees who were accused of causing financial damage to the business through their actions during the strike, including violence and intimidation tactics against non-striking workers. The court had to determine whether these activities constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws - specifically, if they restrained interstate commerce in any way as defined by the Sherman Act. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that while such conduct may be punishable under state law or other statutes relating to labor disputes, it did not constitute restraint of trade or commerce under federal antitrust laws because there was no direct link with market competition or price manipulation involved in this case. Therefore, Apex's claim for damages based on alleged violations of these laws was dismissed.

The dissenting opinion in the Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader et al., case argued that the majority's decision expanded federal jurisdiction over labor disputes beyond what was intended by Congress, and could potentially infringe upon states' rights to handle such matters within their own jurisdictions. The dissenters believed that not every labor dispute had a direct effect on commerce, and thus should not automatically fall under federal jurisdiction as per the Sherman Act. They also expressed concern about potential misuse of injunctions against strikes or other labor activities based on this broad interpretation of "restraint of trade". Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that violence during a strike inherently constituted an unlawful restraint of trade; instead arguing it should be considered separately from any alleged antitrust violations.