In the case of Leedom et al., Members of the National Labor Relations Board v. International Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers (1956), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB had refused to count ballots from employees who were not members of a particular bargaining unit during an election for union representation. The International Union argued that this refusal violated their rights under Section 9(c)(1) and Section 9(b)3)of the National Labor Relations Act, which states that all employees should have a say in choosing their representatives. However, it was determined by Justice Brennan that these sections did not apply as they only cover situations where there is no existing representative or when there are questions about majority representation. Since neither situation applied here, he concluded that Congress intended for such disputes to be resolved through administrative channels rather than judicial ones.

In the dissenting opinion for Leedom et al., Members of the National Labor Relations Board v. International Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles governing judicial review of administrative action. He contended that it was not within the court's jurisdiction to interfere with an ongoing administrative process based on allegations about potential future harm or injury. The justice believed that such interference could lead to unnecessary delays and disruptions in agency proceedings and undermine their effectiveness. Furthermore, he asserted that any grievances against an agency’s actions should be addressed through statutory channels rather than by seeking injunctive relief from courts prematurely.