In the 1945 case Mabee et al. v. White Plains Publishing Co., the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving labor relations and newspaper publishing. The plaintiffs, employees of the defendant's newspaper company, went on strike after unsuccessful negotiations for better working conditions and wages. During this time, they picketed outside their workplace with signs that urged customers to boycott buying newspapers from their employer until an agreement was reached. The publisher sued in state court claiming that such action constituted illegal restraint of trade under New York law because it interfered with its business relationships with advertisers and subscribers. However, when appealed to federal courts by defendants citing Norris-LaGuardia Act (which limited power of federal courts in cases involving labor disputes), lower courts dismissed it stating lack of jurisdiction. Upon reaching Supreme Court, it held that while Norris-LaGuardia Act did limit powers of federal courts in certain aspects related to labor disputes; however, it didn't completely strip them off jurisdiction over all matters concerning such issues especially where constitutional rights were involved as claimed by plaintiff here i.e., right against unlawful interference into one’s lawful business activities protected under Fourteenth Amendment due process clause. Thus reversing lower court decisions dismissing suit based solely on grounds of lack-of-jurisdiction without considering merits or constitutionality aspect raised by plaintiff; thereby remanding back case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

The dissenting opinion in the Mabee et al. v. White Plains Publishing Co case argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of law regarding labor disputes and freedom of speech. The dissent contended that the newspaper company had not violated any laws by publishing an advertisement for non-union workers during a strike, as it was merely exercising its right to free speech and press under the First Amendment. They also disagreed with the majority's view that this constituted an unfair labor practice, arguing instead that it fell within legitimate business practices during a labor dispute. Furthermore, they believed there were no grounds for holding newspapers liable for damages caused by strikes or other industrial conflicts simply because they published advertisements related to these events.