In the 1932 case Levering & Garrigues Company, Hedden Iron Construction Company, McClintic-Marshall Company v. Paul J. Morrin, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of construction companies against a labor union leader who had been encouraging strikes and boycotts to secure better working conditions for his members. The court held that such activities were not protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech because they interfered with interstate commerce and violated federal anti-trust laws designed to prevent monopolies and promote competition. This decision reflected an era when courts often sided with businesses over workers in disputes about labor rights.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Levering & Garrigues Company, Hedden Iron Construction Company, McClintic-Marshall Company et al. v Paul J. Morrin argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against employers was incorrect and overstepped its bounds by interfering with private contractual relationships between employers and employees. The dissenters believed that it was not within the purview of courts to dictate terms or conditions of employment contracts unless there were clear violations of law or public policy at stake. They also expressed concern about potential negative impacts on business operations due to increased legal uncertainty and unpredictability resulting from this ruling, which they viewed as an unwarranted judicial intrusion into matters better left for negotiation between parties involved in labor relations.