The U.S. Supreme Court case National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc., in 1943 revolved around the issue of whether newsboys who sold newspapers for Hearst Publications were employees or independent contractors under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The court ruled that they were indeed employees and therefore had rights to collective bargaining under NLRA. This decision was based on an "economic realities" test which considered factors such as dependency on work and permanence of relationship rather than just control over manner and means of work. However, this broad interpretation faced criticism from Congress leading to amendments in the Taft-Hartley Act limiting the definition of employee within NLRA.

In the dissenting opinion of the case National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc., Justice Owen Roberts and Frank Murphy argued that the majority's interpretation of "employee" under the National Labor Relations Act was too broad. They contended that newsboys should not be classified as employees because they do not have a traditional employer-employee relationship with newspaper publishers like Hearst Publications. Instead, they viewed them as independent contractors who purchase newspapers at wholesale prices and sell them independently without any supervision or control from Hearst Publications over their work hours or methods of sale. The dissenters believed this classification is crucial in determining whether an individual has rights to collective bargaining under labor laws. They warned against expanding definitions within legislation beyond what Congress intended, asserting it could lead to unintended consequences and potential misuse of power by administrative agencies such as NLRB.