In the case of J.F. Fitzgerald Construction Co. v. Pedersen (1944), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pedersen, a worker who was injured while working on a construction project for J.F. Fitzgerald Construction Company that involved federal property and was under federal jurisdiction due to wartime necessity. The court held that although the injury occurred on federally owned land, it did not preclude state workers' compensation laws from applying as they would have if the accident had happened on private property within the state's borders. The company argued that since their contract with Pedersen specified adherence to Federal Workmen’s Compensation Act, he should be barred from seeking additional compensation under Connecticut law where his injury took place; however, this argument was rejected by both lower courts and finally by Supreme Court too. This decision reinforced states’ rights over workers' compensation issues even when dealing with federally controlled projects or properties.

The dissenting opinion in the case of J.F. Fitzgerald Construction Co. v. Pedersen argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring out-of-state contractors to pay their workers at least twice per month was an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. The dissent contended that this requirement placed an undue hardship on out-of-state businesses, as it forced them to alter their payroll systems and potentially incur additional costs in order to comply with the law, while providing no clear benefit or protection for workers. Furthermore, they believed that such regulation should fall under federal jurisdiction rather than being left up to individual states, which could lead to a patchwork of conflicting laws and further complicate matters for businesses operating across state lines.