In the case of Ford Motor Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 1938, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The issue at hand was whether Ford had violated Section 8(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act by interfering with its employees' rights to form labor unions and engage in collective bargaining activities. The NLRB found that Ford had engaged in unfair labor practices such as creating a company union, dismissing employees for their union activities, and refusing to negotiate with an independent workers’ union. In response, Ford argued that it did not violate any laws because it treated all its employees fairly irrespective of their affiliation or non-affiliation with any particular organization or group. However, after reviewing evidence presented by both parties including testimonies from dismissed workers who claimed they were fired due to their involvement in organizing a strike against wage cuts imposed by management without consultation; the court upheld NLRB's decision stating that these actions constituted interference under federal law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ford Motor Co. v. National Labor Relations Board argued that the majority's decision to uphold the NLRB's order against Ford was an overreach of federal power and a violation of states' rights. The dissenters believed that labor disputes should be handled at a state level, rather than by a federal agency like the NLRB. They also expressed concern about potential bias within the NLRB, arguing that its members were not impartial judges but advocates for labor unions who could potentially use their authority to unfairly target businesses like Ford. Furthermore, they disagreed with how broadly the majority interpreted "unfair labor practices," believing this interpretation gave too much power to unions and did not adequately protect employers' rights.