In the case of Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees et al. v. United States et al., 1960, the Supreme Court examined whether a federal court could enjoin a labor union from striking to enforce an agreement made with their employer under the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The unions had agreed not to strike during negotiations but later threatened to do so when discussions stalled. The government sought and received an injunction preventing them from striking, which was upheld by both district and appellate courts. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court, it was held that while RLA does require parties to exert every reasonable effort to settle disputes without interruption to commerce or operation of carrier services; it does not explicitly authorize federal courts' power for injunctive relief in such cases unless there is non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements outlined in RLA itself - which wasn't applicable here as per majority opinion led by Justice Brennan.

In the dissenting opinion for Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes et al. v. United States et al., Justice Hugo Black argued that the majority's decision to uphold an injunction against a railroad workers' strike was unconstitutional, as it violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly. He contended that Congress did not intend for courts to have such broad power in labor disputes when it passed the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which limited federal courts' ability to issue injunctions in labor disputes. Furthermore, he believed that this case represented a dangerous precedent where judicial intervention could be used excessively in future labor conflicts without proper legislative authority or constitutional justification.