In the case of Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown Railroad Co., 1951, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of workers' rights to sue their employers for negligence under state law even if they had already received compensation under federal law. The plaintiff, Mr. Dice was a railroad worker who got injured on duty and sought damages from his employer based on Ohio's negligence laws after receiving benefits through Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA). His employer argued that FELA precluded him from seeking additional compensation at the state level but both lower courts disagreed with this argument and awarded Mr. Dice damages. The Supreme Court upheld these decisions stating that while FELA provides some protection for railway workers it does not prevent them from pursuing further claims under state law where appropriate. This decision reinforced the principle that federal legislation should not be interpreted as overriding or limiting individuals' rights unless explicitly stated by Congress.

In the dissenting opinion for Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown Railroad Co., Justice Robert H. Jackson argued that the majority's decision to allow a state court jury trial in this case was inconsistent with federal law and policy. He contended that Congress had intended for cases under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) to be tried in federal courts, not state courts, as they involve complex issues of national concern. Furthermore, he expressed concerns about potential bias from local juries against large out-of-state corporations like railroads and believed it would lead to unpredictable results due to varying interpretations of FELA by different states. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority's ruling which allowed a plaintiff who filed suit under FELA in a state court to demand a jury trial instead of having their case decided by a judge alone.