In the case of Los Angeles Brush Manufacturing Corporation v. James, District Judge in 1926, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over an injunction issued by a lower court. The Los Angeles Brush Manufacturing Corporation had been enjoined from violating certain provisions of California's labor laws regarding women and minor workers' working hours and conditions. The corporation argued that these state regulations were unconstitutional as they interfered with interstate commerce and deprived them of their property without due process of law. The Supreme Court held that it was not within its jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus (an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse) against Judge James because he did not exceed his jurisdiction nor did he fail in his judicial duty when issuing the injunction against LA Brush Manufacturing Corp., thus denying LA Brush’s petition for such writs. This decision upheld California's right to regulate working conditions within its borders even if those regulations might affect interstate commerce indirectly, reinforcing states’ police power – ability to regulate for health, safety, welfare - while also emphasizing limits on federal courts’ powers.

In the dissenting opinion for Los Angeles Brush Manufacturing Corporation v. James, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against an injunction in favor of the plaintiff was incorrect. The dissent believed that there were indeed grounds for such an injunction because there existed a clear violation of contract rights by union workers who had agreed not to strike but did so anyway. This breach of agreement, according to this view, warranted legal intervention and protection from further harm caused by strikes or boycotts initiated by these workers. Furthermore, they contended that federal courts should have jurisdiction over such matters as they involve interstate commerce which falls under federal purview rather than state law alone.