In the case of Oklahoma v. United States Civil Service Commission in 1946, the state of Oklahoma challenged a federal law that prohibited political activities by employees receiving salaries from federal relief funds. The Supreme Court ruled against Oklahoma, upholding the Hatch Act which restricts political campaign activity by federal employees and some state and local government workers who are primarily funded by federal money. The court found that Congress had not exceeded its constitutional powers when it enacted this legislation as part of an effort to maintain a politically neutral civil service system. This decision affirmed the principle that states must comply with validly enacted federal laws even if they conflict with their own policies or preferences.

In the dissenting opinion for Oklahoma v. United States Civil Service Commission, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the Hatch Act and its intent. He contended that Congress did not intend to prohibit state employees from engaging in political activities but rather sought to prevent federal employees from using their positions for partisan advantage. The justice also pointed out that there was no evidence showing any misuse of power by state officials or any threat to free elections due to their participation in politics. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on broad interpretations of ambiguous statutory language instead of focusing on specific legislative history and purpose behind it. In his view, this approach undermined states' rights and intruded upon their ability to manage their own affairs without federal interference.