In the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Friedman-Harry Marks Clothing Co., 1936, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB had accused Friedman-Harry Marks Clothing Company of unfair labor practices, including interfering with employees' rights to form and join unions. The company argued that it was not engaged in interstate commerce as defined by the Wagner Act (National Labor Relations Act), thus placing it outside NLRB's jurisdiction. However, even though a significant portion of its business was conducted within one state, because some products were shipped out-of-state and raw materials were sourced from other states, this constituted sufficient involvement in interstate commerce according to Justice Harlan Fiske Stone who delivered the opinion for a unanimous court. Therefore, they fell under federal regulation and their actions violated workers’ rights protected by law.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Friedman-Harry Marks Clothing Co., it was argued that the majority had overstepped its bounds by interpreting the Wagner Act in a way that allowed unions to engage in practices which were not explicitly permitted under law. The dissenters believed this interpretation gave too much power to labor organizations, potentially infringing on employers' rights and disrupting balance between workers and management. They also expressed concern about potential abuses of this power by unions, such as coercive tactics or monopolistic behavior. Furthermore, they disagreed with how broadly "employee" was defined within the act's context, arguing it could include individuals who should not be covered under its protections like independent contractors or agricultural laborers.