The Bedford Cut Stone Company v. Journeymen Stone Cutters' Association of North America case in 1926 revolved around a dispute between the stone company and its employees, who were members of the union. The workers demanded that their employer only use stones cut by union laborers, which was refused by the company leading to a strike. The company then sued for damages caused by this strike on grounds that it violated anti-trust laws as an unlawful restraint of trade. However, the Supreme Court ruled against Bedford Cut Stone Company stating that labor unions are not subject to antitrust laws because they do not engage in commerce but rather seek better working conditions and wages for their members; thus, their actions did not constitute illegal restraints on trade or commerce under federal law.

The dissenting opinion in the Bedford Cut Stone Company v. Journeymen Stone Cutters' Association of North America case argued that the majority's decision to rule against labor unions was a misinterpretation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The dissenters believed that this act, which was designed to prevent monopolies and promote competition, should not be applied to labor unions as they are fundamentally different from commercial enterprises. They contended that workers joining together to negotiate better wages and working conditions does not constitute an illegal restraint of trade or commerce under the law. Furthermore, they expressed concern about how such a ruling could negatively impact future union activities by potentially criminalizing collective bargaining efforts.