In the 1967 case Maryland et al. v. Wirtz, Secretary of Labor, et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled that Congress had not overstepped its constitutional authority by extending minimum wage and maximum hour provisions to state employees who worked in schools and hospitals under amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938. The states argued that this was an intrusion on their sovereignty as it interfered with their ability to manage internal affairs including employment conditions for public workers. However, a majority of justices held that these regulations were within Congress's power under the Commerce Clause because they affected interstate commerce directly enough - even though they involved traditionally local services like education and healthcare provided by state institutions. This decision expanded federal labor law protections but also stirred controversy about federalism boundaries.

In the dissenting opinion for Maryland et al. v. Wirtz, Secretary of Labor, et al., Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision to uphold Congress' power to regulate wages and hours in state schools and hospitals under the Commerce Clause was a dangerous expansion of federal authority into areas traditionally controlled by states. He contended that this interpretation could potentially allow Congress to control any aspect of life on grounds it indirectly affects commerce, undermining state sovereignty and individual liberties protected by the Constitution. Furthermore, he expressed concern over potential abuses of such broad regulatory powers without clear constitutional limits or safeguards against arbitrary action.