In the case of National Labor Relations Board v. White Swan Co., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB had accused White Swan Company, a laundry business, of unfair labor practices for interfering with its employees' rights to form and join labor unions under Section 7 of the Wagner Act or National Labor Relations Act. The company argued that it was not engaged in interstate commerce as defined by Congress and thus should not be subject to federal regulation under this act. However, evidence showed that while most of its operations were local, some aspects did involve interstate commerce such as out-of-state supplies used in their services which accounted for more than negligible portion of their total purchases. Therefore, they fell within jurisdictional reach according to established legal standards at that time on what constituted 'affecting commerce'. Thusly, the court upheld NLRB's cease-and-desist order against White Swan Company's anti-union activities.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. WHITE SWAN CO., Justice Roberts disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, which allows for cease and desist orders to be issued against unfair labor practices. He argued that this provision should not be interpreted so broadly as to allow an order compelling reinstatement or back pay in all cases where an employee has been discharged, regardless of whether it was due to union activity or other reasons unrelated to any alleged unfair labor practice. According to him, such a broad interpretation would effectively transform every wrongful discharge into a violation of federal law and overstep Congress' intent when drafting this legislation. Instead, he believed that each case should be evaluated individually based on its specific circumstances before determining if such remedies are appropriate under Section 10(c).