In the case of City of Charlotte et al. v. Local 660, International Association of Firefighters et al., the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a North Carolina statute that prohibited public employees from striking violated their First Amendment rights. The city's firefighters and police officers had formed unions and were seeking collective bargaining rights, which the city refused to grant them. They threatened to strike if their demands were not met, but state law made it illegal for public employees to do so. The union argued that this prohibition infringed upon its members' freedom of speech because it prevented them from expressing dissatisfaction with working conditions through strikes or other job actions. However, in a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Potter Stewart in 1975, the court held that while public employees have a right to associate and advocate for certain causes (including better pay), they do not have an absolute constitutional right to strike. The court reasoned that states could reasonably restrict such activities due to their potential impact on essential services like fire protection and policing; thus upholding North Carolina’s ban on strikes by public workers as constitutional.

In the dissenting opinion for City of Charlotte v. Local 660, International Association of Firefighters, Justice William O. Douglas argued that public employees should have the right to strike as a means of collective bargaining and dispute resolution with their employers. He believed that this case was not about whether strikes by public employees were legal or illegal but rather if they had any rights at all under federal labor laws when it came to negotiating terms and conditions of employment. According to him, denying them such rights would be tantamount to treating them like "second-class citizens". Furthermore, he contended that there was no compelling reason why these workers should be denied the same protections afforded private sector workers under federal law.