In the case of Local 144 Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Nicholas Demisay, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether federal courts had jurisdiction over a dispute involving an employee benefit plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The plaintiffs were trustees of a nursing home pension fund who sued for contributions they claimed were owed by employers participating in the fund. The defendants argued that their collective bargaining agreement did not require them to make these payments and sought arbitration as provided by their contract with union employees. In a unanimous decision, the court held that ERISA does not provide federal courts with jurisdiction over disputes about whether certain agreements are part of an ERISA plan when those agreements themselves do not reference or rely on such plans for their existence or operation. Instead, such disputes should be resolved through arbitration if so stipulated in relevant contracts.

In the dissenting opinion for Local 144 Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Nicholas Demisay, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision to allow federal courts to decide whether a particular dispute falls within an arbitration clause of a collective bargaining agreement was incorrect. He believed this interpretation contradicted Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), which gives state courts concurrent jurisdiction over such disputes. In his view, allowing federal courts exclusive jurisdiction would undermine labor-management relations and disrupt established practices in labor law. Furthermore, he contended that it is not up to judges but rather parties involved in collective bargaining agreements themselves to determine what issues are subject to arbitration.