The Pacific Coast Steel Co. v. McLaughlin case in 1932 revolved around a dispute over the enforcement of an arbitration award under a collective bargaining agreement between Pacific Coast Steel Company and its employees, represented by the International Association of Machinists. The company refused to comply with the arbitrator's decision that favored certain employees who were laid off during a strike, arguing that it was not bound by this decision as it had withdrawn from negotiations before they concluded. However, the Supreme Court ruled against them stating that their withdrawal did not absolve them from adhering to decisions made through agreed-upon processes like arbitration. Therefore, they were obligated to respect and implement the arbitrator’s ruling regarding employee compensation for lost wages due to wrongful termination during strikes.

The dissenting opinion in the Pacific Coast Steel Co. v. McLaughlin case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Washington state law requiring employers to pay workers on a weekly basis was an overreach of judicial power and violated principles of federalism. The dissent contended that it is not within the purview of courts to determine whether such laws are wise or unwise, but rather their role is only to ascertain if they violate constitutional provisions. They believed this particular law did not infrive upon any rights guaranteed by the Constitution, including those related with contracts or property rights as claimed by Pacific Coast Steel Company. Furthermore, they asserted that states should have autonomy in regulating local businesses and industries without interference from federal judiciary unless there's clear violation of constitutionally protected rights.