In the case of Malone, Commissioner of Labor and Industry for Minnesota v. White Motor Corp et al., 1977, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving state versus federal jurisdiction in labor disputes. The issue arose when White Motor Corporation closed its Minneapolis plant due to economic reasons and transferred work to plants in other states. The State of Minnesota filed suit against White Motors under its "Plant Closing Law," which required businesses planning large-scale layoffs or closures to give six months' notice and negotiate with employees about ways to avoid job loss. However, the company argued that this law was preempted by federal labor laws - specifically Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court sided with White Motors stating that while states have broad power over their own economies, they cannot interfere with national policy on labor relations as outlined by Congress in LMRA. Therefore, it held that Minnesota's Plant Closing Law was indeed preempted by federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for Malone v. White Motor Corp., Justice William Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of Congress' intent in passing the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). He contended that, by allowing state courts to adjudicate disputes over collective bargaining agreements, they were undermining federal labor policy which sought uniformity and predictability in this area. Furthermore, he believed it would lead to an increase in litigation as parties seek out favorable jurisdictions. Rehnquist also disagreed with the majority’s view on preemption doctrine; he asserted that when there is a conflict between federal and state law, federal law should prevail - thus making such cases exclusively within federal jurisdiction. The justice concluded his dissent by expressing concern about potential negative impacts on interstate commerce due to inconsistent rulings from different states.