In the case of International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Allied International, Inc., 1981, the Supreme Court dealt with a labor dispute involving an international boycott. The International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) refused to unload Soviet cargo in protest of the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan. Allied International imported Russian wood products and sued ILA for violating their duty to handle goods under a collective bargaining agreement and causing economic harm by refusing to unload its shipments. The main issue was whether federal courts could intervene in such disputes or if they were matters for National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The court ruled that while generally it is NLRB’s jurisdiction to deal with labor disputes like this one; however, when conduct involves political objectives beyond employment conditions - as was the case here - it falls outside NLRB’s purview. Therefore, federal courts could indeed adjudicate on this matter but ultimately sided with ILA stating that unions have broad immunity from damages caused during labor disputes under federal law unless they involve violent acts or threats thereof.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Allied International, Inc., Justice William Rehnquist disagreed with the majority’s decision that labor unions could be held liable under federal antitrust laws for their boycotts against foreign goods. He argued that such a ruling was inconsistent with previous court decisions and Congressional intent regarding labor disputes and international commerce regulation. According to him, Congress had intentionally left out any mention of foreign commerce in its amendments to antitrust laws because it wanted to retain exclusive authority over international trade matters. Therefore, he believed that applying these domestic laws on an international scale exceeded judicial authority and infringed upon executive prerogatives in conducting foreign affairs.