In the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Fruehauf Trailer Co., 1936, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB had charged that Fruehauf Trailer Company was engaging in unfair labor practices by interfering with, restraining and coercing its employees' rights to self-organization and collective bargaining. This included allegations that they were discouraging membership in a labor organization through acts such as discharging and refusing to reinstate certain employees because they engaged or intended to engage in union activities. The company argued it did not fall under the jurisdiction of NLRB as it was involved primarily in intrastate commerce rather than interstate commerce which is regulated by federal law. However, this argument was rejected by both lower courts and eventually by the Supreme Court too on appeal, stating that even though their operations were local geographically, they still significantly affected interstate commerce due to their interconnectedness with other businesses operating across state lines.

The dissenting opinion in the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Fruehauf Trailer Co., 1936, argued that the majority's interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act was overly broad and not consistent with its original intent. The dissenters believed that Congress intended to regulate only those labor disputes which had a direct effect on commerce, rather than any dispute involving an industry affecting commerce indirectly or potentially. They contended that by extending federal jurisdiction to all industries 'affecting' interstate commerce, regardless of whether their labor practices directly impeded it or not, would lead to an unwarranted expansion of federal power over local affairs. This could undermine state authority and upset the balance between state and national government as established by Constitution’s framers.