In the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1938 that sit-down strikes were not protected activities under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The dispute began when Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation refused to bargain with a union, leading workers to stage a sit-down strike and seize company property. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ordered Fansteel to rehire strikers who had been fired as a result of their participation in this action, arguing that they were engaged in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection under NLRA provisions. However, on appeal by Fansteel, the Supreme Court held that while employees have rights to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing without interference from employers, these rights do not extend so far as sanctioning seizure or retention of an employer's property against his will during labor disputes.

The dissenting opinion in the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., argued that the majority's decision was too harsh and failed to consider the context of labor disputes. The dissenters believed that workers should not be permanently barred from their jobs due to participation in a sit-down strike, especially when such strikes were often provoked by employers' unfair labor practices. They pointed out that this ruling could potentially encourage more violent forms of protest, as peaceful sit-ins would no longer provide any protection for workers' rights or job security. Furthermore, they criticized the majority for failing to enforce provisions within the National Labor Relations Act which required employers to bargain with employees collectively through representatives of their own choosing; instead allowing companies like Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation to dictate terms unilaterally without negotiation or compromise.