The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, et al. v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Company, et al., 1995 case revolved around the interpretation of a federal law that governs collective bargaining agreements in the railroad industry. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE) had filed suit against several railroads including Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co., alleging they violated an agreement by assigning certain work to employees who were not members of BLE's bargaining unit. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroads stating that such disputes should be resolved by arbitration before the National Railroad Adjustment Board rather than through litigation in court as it was primarily a matter concerning labor contracts within specific industries which falls under jurisdictional purview of specialized administrative bodies like NRAB rather than courts.

In the dissenting opinion for Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Company, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of labor law. He contended that the Railway Labor Act (RLA) should be interpreted in a way that promotes collective bargaining and minimizes industrial strife. The majority’s interpretation, he believed, undermined these goals by allowing employers to unilaterally change working conditions during negotiations without first obtaining approval from the National Mediation Board or exhausting all possible avenues for settlement under RLA procedures. This could potentially disrupt labor relations and lead to strikes or other forms of industrial action. Furthermore, he disagreed with their view on what constitutes a "major dispute" under the RLA - arguing instead that any disagreement over changes in pay rates or work rules should qualify as such due its potential impact on workers' rights and welfare.