In the case of Buck's Stove & Range Company v. American Federation of Labor, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a union boycott constituted an illegal restraint of trade under federal antitrust laws. The dispute began when the company refused to recognize and negotiate with its workers' union, leading the American Federation of Labor (AFL) to call for a nationwide boycott against their products in 1907. In response, Buck's Stove & Range Company sued AFL alleging that this action violated Sherman Antitrust Act by restraining interstate commerce. The court ruled in favor of AFL stating that labor unions were not subject to antitrust laws as they are not combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade but rather organizations advocating for better working conditions and wages for their members. This decision marked an important victory for labor rights at a time when unions were still fighting for recognition and legitimacy within America’s legal framework.

In the dissenting opinion for Buck's Stove & Range Company v. American Federation of Labor, it was argued that the majority decision failed to properly consider the rights and interests of labor unions in their struggle against corporations. The dissent emphasized that boycotts were a legitimate tool used by workers to improve their working conditions and wages, and should not be considered illegal unless they involved violence or threats. It also pointed out that corporations often had far more power than individual workers or even entire unions, making such tactics necessary for leveling the playing field. Furthermore, it criticized the court's interpretation of "conspiracy," arguing that merely agreeing to participate in a boycott did not constitute an unlawful conspiracy under common law principles.