In the case of Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Brown, 2007, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of The Chamber by a vote of 7-2. This case revolved around a California law that prohibited employers from using state funds to deter union activities among their employees. The Chamber argued that this law was pre-empted by federal labor laws which allow employers to express views about unions as long as they do not threaten or coerce employees. In its decision, the court agreed with this argument and held that California's law infringed on an employer's right under federal labor policy to engage in non-coercive speech about unionization. Therefore, it concluded that such state regulation is preempted by national labor legislation because it interferes with Congress’s intent for both sides (employers and unions) to have freedom in expressing their viewpoints during organizing campaigns.

In the dissenting opinion for Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Brown, Justice Stephen Breyer argued that California's law prohibiting employers from using state funds to deter union organizing did not infringe on federal labor policy but rather complemented it. He contended that Congress intended to leave room for states to regulate in areas traditionally within their power, such as controlling how state funds are spent. The majority’s interpretation, he believed, would unduly limit this traditional state authority and potentially interfere with a variety of other similar laws across many states. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that neutrality is an "unusual" or "extraordinary" condition; instead asserting that employer neutrality towards unionization is often beneficial and should be encouraged by legislation like California's law.