In the case of Lechmere, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (1991), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lechmere, a retail store chain. The dispute began when union organizers from the United Food and Commercial Workers Union were denied access to Lechmere's private parking lot to distribute literature about unionizing efforts among employees. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) initially sided with the union, arguing that denying access violated workers' rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act which allows employees to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid or protection. However, on appeal by Lechmere, Inc., Justice Clarence Thomas delivered an opinion stating that while nonemployee union organizers could not be completely barred from reaching out to employees under all circumstances; an employer’s property rights should generally prevail unless there are unique obstacles preventing communication between unions and workers elsewhere. In this case no such exceptional conditions existed as most of Lechmere's employees lived off-site making it possible for them to be contacted outside work premises.

In the dissenting opinion for Lechmere, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision was too rigid and failed to properly balance property rights against federal labor laws promoting collective bargaining. He criticized their interpretation of NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., stating it did not categorically ban nonemployee union activity on private property but rather called for a balancing test between employer’s property rights and employees' organizing rights under certain circumstances. He also disagreed with the majority's view that an exception could only be made when workers were inaccessible outside company premises, arguing this standard was too strict and would unfairly limit unions' ability to reach out to workers in many situations where alternative means of communication are ineffective or insufficient.