In the case of Hotel Employees Union, Local No. 255, et al. v. Sax Enterprises, Inc., et al., in 1958, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute between a hotel employees union and their employer over collective bargaining agreements. The union claimed that Sax Enterprises had violated federal labor laws by refusing to bargain collectively and failing to adhere to an existing agreement's terms regarding wages, hours of work and other conditions of employment for its workers at two hotels it operated in Denver. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled in favor of the union but was reversed by the Court of Appeals on jurisdictional grounds as they believed NLRB lacked authority since most business activities were local rather than interstate commerce which is required under NLRA statute for NLRB’s jurisdiction. The Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation and held that even though direct effect on interstate commerce might be small or indirect due to mostly local operations; if cumulatively such situations could hamper flow of interstate commerce then NLRB has jurisdiction under NLRA statute. This decision clarified how broadly "affecting commerce" clause should be interpreted within context of labor disputes thus strengthening power & reachability scope for bodies like NLRB dealing with such issues nationwide.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hotel Employees Union, Local No. 255 v. Sax Enterprises Inc., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting picketing by labor unions was incorrect and violated First Amendment rights. The dissenters believed that peaceful picketing is a form of free speech protected under the Constitution, regardless of whether it involves labor disputes or not. They also disagreed with the majority's view that such laws were necessary to prevent violence or other public disturbances, arguing instead that these concerns could be addressed through less restrictive means without infringing on constitutional rights. Furthermore, they contended that this ruling would unfairly limit workers' ability to advocate for better working conditions and wages.