The U.S. Supreme Court case Goodall-Sanford, Inc., v. United Textile Workers of America, A.F.L Local 1802 et al., in 1956 revolved around a labor dispute between the textile company and its workers' union over wage increases. The union had demanded an increase in wages which was rejected by the company leading to a strike by the employees. The Maine Labor Relations Board ruled that Goodall-Sanford had engaged in unfair labor practices by refusing to negotiate with the Union about wage increases and ordered them to compensate their striking workers for lost earnings during this period. However, on appeal, both state courts reversed this decision stating that it was not within MLRB's jurisdiction as federal law preempted state law regarding collective bargaining issues under Taft-Hartley Act (1947). This led to further appeals culminating at Supreme Court level where it upheld lower court rulings stating that National Labor Relations Act preempts states from regulating conduct arguably protected or prohibited by federal statute thus affirming supremacy of federal laws over conflicting state laws.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Goodall-Sanford, Inc. v. United Textile Workers of America, A.F.L Local 1802 et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold an injunction against a labor strike was incorrect and potentially harmful to labor rights. The dissenters believed that the Norris-LaGuardia Act should have been interpreted more broadly to protect workers' right to strike without interference from federal courts unless there is clear evidence of violence or threats thereof. They also expressed concern about potential bias in favor of employers if courts are allowed too much discretion in deciding when strikes can be enjoined. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "unlawful acts" as including non-violent picketing and other peaceful protest activities commonly used by unions during strikes.