The Hattiesburg Building & Trades Council et al. v. Broome, Doing Business as Broome Construction & Maintenance Co., et al., 1963 case revolved around a dispute between the local building and trades council and a construction company in Mississippi. The council had been picketing at the site of an ongoing project by the construction company to protest against their hiring practices which did not favor unionized laborers. This led to an injunction being issued against them by a state court on grounds that they were violating Mississippi's "right-to-work" laws, which prohibit agreements between unions and employers making membership or payment of union dues or fees a condition of employment. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court, it was ruled that this application of state law violated federal legislation - specifically Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) - which protects workers' rights to self-organization and collective bargaining. Therefore, since federal law takes precedence over conflicting state laws under Supremacy Clause principles in U.S Constitution Article VI clause 2 ,the ruling reversed lower courts’ decisions thereby allowing peaceful picketing activities.

In the dissenting opinion for Hattiesburg Building & Trades Council et al. v. Broome, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent regarding labor disputes and secondary boycotts under Section 8(b)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). He contended that this case involved primary activity, not secondary activity as determined by the majority. The union’s picketing at job sites where non-union contractors were working was aimed directly at their employer to compel them to pay standard wages - an objective within bounds of NLRA protection according to him. Furthermore, he criticized how broadly 'secondary boycott' had been defined in this ruling which could potentially stifle legitimate union activities protected by law. He also expressed concern about federal courts intervening too much into labor disputes which should be left primarily to administrative agencies like NLRB with expertise in such matters.