In the case of Holly Farms Corporation et al. v. National Labor Relations Board et al., 1995, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The dispute involved whether chicken catchers employed by Holly Farms were agricultural laborers or employees engaged in commerce under the definitions provided by Fair Labor Standards Act and National Labor Relations Act. If classified as agricultural workers, they would be exempt from certain protections offered to other types of employees under these acts. However, NLRB had determined that these workers should be considered commercial employees due to their involvement in interstate commerce activities such as loading chickens onto trucks for transportation across state lines. The Supreme Court upheld this decision on appeal with a majority vote of 7-2, stating that while some aspects of their work could be seen as agricultural tasks like catching chickens within farm boundaries; it was outweighed by their role in preparing poultry for market which is an activity more closely associated with commerce than agriculture.

In the dissenting opinion for Holly Farms Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, argued that chicken catchers employed by Holly Farms should be classified as agricultural laborers rather than employees under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). They contended that the majority misinterpreted Section 3(f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which defines "agriculture" to include farming in all its branches and among other things includes cultivation and tillage of soil. The dissenting justices believed this definition encompassed activities like those performed by chicken catchers at Holly Farms. They also criticized the majority's reliance on legislative history to interpret FLSA’s definitions instead of focusing on their plain meaning. In their view, this approach led to an incorrect conclusion about Congress' intent when it exempted agricultural workers from NLRA coverage.