In the case of United Leather Workers International Union, Local Lodge or Union No. 66, et al. v. Herkert & Meisel Trunk Company et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Herkert & Meisel Trunk Company and against the union's use of secondary boycotts as a means to further their labor disputes with employers. The court held that such practices were unlawful under federal law because they interfered with interstate commerce by causing harm to neutral parties who had no direct involvement in the labor dispute between unions and employers. This decision was significant as it clarified that while workers have rights to protest working conditions through strikes or other collective action, these actions must not infrally upon others' rights or disrupt commercial activities unrelated to their grievances.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United Leather Workers International Union, Local Lodge or Union No. 66, et al. v. Herkert & Meisel Trunk Company et al., argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established legal principles regarding labor disputes and injunctions. The dissenters believed that the court had overstepped its bounds by intervening in what they saw as a dispute between private parties - namely, an employer and its employees' union - rather than a matter of public concern warranting judicial intervention. They contended that this interference violated workers' rights to organize and engage in collective bargaining activities protected under federal law at the time.