In the case of In re Debs, Petitioner, 1894, Eugene V. Debs was a labor leader who led the American Railway Union in a nationwide railroad strike known as the Pullman Strike. The federal government intervened to stop the strike on grounds that it interfered with interstate commerce and mail delivery. When Debs refused to comply with an injunction ordering him to stop interfering with railway operations, he was held in contempt of court and sentenced to six months imprisonment. Debs appealed his conviction arguing that neither Congress nor courts had authority over labor disputes under U.S Constitution's Commerce Clause (Article I Section 8). However, Supreme Court unanimously upheld his conviction stating that federal government has power under Commerce Clause not only regulate interstate commerce but also ensure its operation is unobstructed by strikes or other forms of industrial action. This landmark decision significantly expanded scope of federal power over labor relations and set precedent for future cases involving union activities affecting interstate commerce. It marked one of first times where Supreme Court interpreted Commerce Clause broadly enough allow direct regulation individual economic activity if it affected national economy overall.

In the dissenting opinion for In re Debs, Justice Brewer argued that the federal government had overstepped its bounds by intervening in a labor dispute. He contended that while Congress has power to regulate commerce among states, it does not have authority to interfere with strikes or other labor disputes unless they directly obstruct interstate commerce. According to him, there was no evidence presented in this case showing such obstruction. Furthermore, he stated that even if there were obstructions of trains carrying mail or engaged in interstate trade due to strike actions, these would be individual wrongs and should be dealt with individually under state law rather than collectively at a federal level. Brewer also expressed concern about potential misuse of injunctions as tools of oppression against workers' rights and liberties.