In the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Fainblatt et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB had previously ordered Fainblatt, a clothing manufacturer, to cease and desist from unfair labor practices such as interfering with employees' rights to self-organize and bargain collectively. However, Fainblatt refused to comply with this order on grounds that his business was not involved in interstate commerce and thus outside NLRB's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument stating that even if a company's activities are intrastate in character, they can still affect interstate commerce indirectly or potentially which brings them under federal regulation. Therefore, it upheld NLRB’s authority over businesses whose operations have an impact on interstate commerce regardless of whether their activities are directly engaged in it.

In the dissenting opinion for the National Labor Relations Board v. Fainblatt et al., Justice Butler argued that the majority's decision to uphold a ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was an overreach of federal power. He contended that Congress did not have constitutional authority to regulate labor relations in manufacturing industries, as these were matters of local concern and therefore outside its jurisdiction. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of interstate commerce, asserting it was too broad and could potentially allow Congress to control almost any aspect of business operations under this guise. Lastly, Justice Butler expressed concerns about due process rights being violated by NLRB procedures which allowed for decisions without full hearings or substantial evidence requirements.