In the Granite Rock Company v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters et al., 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on two main issues related to labor disputes and federal jurisdiction. The first issue was whether a federal court could decide when a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was formed if that date determined the applicability of an arbitration clause in the CBA. The second issue concerned whether a claim under section 301(a) of Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), alleging violation of CBAs by unions encouraging or condoning strikes, is directly enforceable through Section 301(a). On these matters, the court held that courts have jurisdiction to resolve such disputes over contract formation where it impacts arbitration clauses' validity or applicability; however, they also ruled that LMRA does not provide direct cause for action against international unions alleged to interfere with their own local affiliates' contractual obligations.

In the dissenting opinion for Granite Rock Company v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters et al., Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg, argued that federal courts should not have jurisdiction over a dispute about when a collective bargaining agreement was ratified if it is intertwined with an interpretation of the contract itself. They contended that such issues are better suited to arbitration as they involve complex labor relations matters best left to experts in the field. The dissent also disagreed with the majority's view on whether tortious interference claims could be brought under federal law, arguing that previous case law did not support this conclusion. They believed allowing these claims would disrupt labor-management relations and potentially undermine national labor policy goals.