The Industrial Commission of Wisconsin et al. v. McCartin et al., 1946, was a Supreme Court case that revolved around the issue of whether or not an employee could receive both state and federal compensation for injuries sustained at work under different laws. The plaintiff, McCartin, had been injured while working on a federally owned ship in Wisconsin and sought to claim benefits from both the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) as well as Wisconsin's Workmen's Compensation Law. The defendants argued that this constituted double recovery which is prohibited by FECA. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of McCartin stating that since he was eligible for compensation under two separate statutes - one federal and one state - he should be allowed to collect from both sources without it being considered double recovery. This ruling established precedent allowing workers who are injured on federally-owned property within states to potentially seek dual recoveries if they qualify under separate state and federal laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Industrial Commission of Wisconsin et al. v. McCartin et al., Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of federalism and due process rights, which he believed were violated by Wisconsin's law denying unemployment benefits to workers involved in labor disputes. He contended that this law interfered with employees' right to collective bargaining under federal legislation, namely the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Furthermore, he asserted that it penalized individuals for exercising their constitutional rights without providing them an opportunity to demonstrate whether or not their actions had actually contributed to work stoppages. In his view, such blanket denial of benefits was both arbitrary and unreasonable; thus violating due process guarantees under the Fourteenth Amendment.