The U.S. Supreme Court case Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (1982) revolved around the question of whether the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) had authority to interfere in a state court lawsuit brought by an employer against employees for their union activities that were protected under federal law. The restaurant filed a lawsuit alleging malicious picketing after its workers went on strike demanding better working conditions and wages; however, NLRB sought to halt this suit claiming it was retaliatory and violated labor laws protecting such worker actions. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Bill Johnson's Restaurants, stating that unless the employer’s suit lacked a reasonable basis or was filed with retaliatory intent, NLRB could not intervene until after the state court made its decision on validity of claims made by employers against employees involved in union activities. This ruling upheld employers' rights to access courts without interference from federal agencies while also recognizing employee protections under national labor laws.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board argued that the majority had overstepped its bounds by allowing the NLRB to interfere with a state court lawsuit filed in good faith and for legitimate reasons. The dissenters believed that this decision violated principles of federalism and comity, as it allowed a federal agency to effectively veto a state court proceeding simply because it involved labor relations issues within its purview. They also expressed concern about potential First Amendment implications, arguing that employers should have the right to access courts without fear of reprisal from administrative agencies like the NLRB. Finally, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that such lawsuits could be considered unfair labor practices under certain circumstances; instead, they contended these are separate legal matters entirely.