In the 1942 case of Lilly v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad Co., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company, overturning a decision by lower courts that had awarded damages to an injured worker under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The plaintiff, Mr. Lilly, was a switchman who suffered injuries while attempting to couple two cars on a slippery track. He claimed negligence on part of his employer for not providing him with sand or other abrasive substances to increase traction and prevent accidents like his from happening. However, upon review, it was determined that there were no specific regulations requiring railroads to provide such materials for their workers' safety during winter conditions at that time period. Therefore, it could not be said that Grand Trunk Western Railroad Co.'s failure constituted negligence as per FELA's standards since they were following existing industry practices and guidelines.

In the dissenting opinion for Lilly v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad Co., it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a railroad worker to sue his employer under federal law, despite an existing state workers' compensation scheme, undermined states' rights and disrupted the balance of power between federal and state governments. The dissenters believed that Congress did not intend for its legislation to supersede or interfere with established state laws on workers’ compensation when they passed Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA). They contended that FELA should be interpreted as providing an alternative remedy only in cases where no adequate provision has been made by State law, rather than allowing employees to choose between remedies at their discretion. This interpretation would respect both Congressional intent and principles of federalism while still protecting injured workers' rights.