In the 1920 case Niles-Bement-Pond Company v. Iron Moulders Union Local No. 68, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the union, upholding their right to strike for better wages and working conditions. The Niles-Bement-Pond Company had sued the union after a strike by its members led to significant financial losses for the company. They argued that this was an illegal conspiracy to damage their business and sought damages from individual strikers as well as from other unions who supported them financially during their industrial action. However, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for a unanimous court, rejected these arguments stating that labor unions have a legal right to organize strikes when negotiating with employers over terms of employment.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Niles-Bement-Pond Company v. Iron Moulders Union Local No. 68 argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the Sherman Act and its intent to regulate business activities, not labor unions' actions. The dissent emphasized that Congress did not intend for this law to apply to labor organizations when it passed the act, as these groups are fundamentally different from businesses or corporations engaging in trade or commerce. They contended that applying anti-trust laws designed for commercial entities onto labor unions would be an inappropriate extension of judicial power into legislative territory, potentially undermining workers' rights and protections under federal law.