In the case of Packard Motor Car Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (1946), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB had found that Packard Motor Car Company was guilty of unfair labor practices, including interfering with its employees' rights to form, join or assist labor organizations and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing as protected by Section 7 of the Wagner Act. The company had also refused to negotiate with a union chosen by its workers for collective bargaining purposes which violated Section 8(1) and 8(5) respectively. Despite arguments from Packard that it did not have sufficient evidence against them, and that they were denied due process because they weren't given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses before a trial examiner's report was made public, these claims were rejected by both lower courts and eventually by the Supreme Court too.

In the dissenting opinion for Packard Motor Car Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, Justice Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "employer" under Section 2(2) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). He argued that a company should not be considered an employer if it does not have direct control over labor relations and working conditions. In this case, he believed that Packard did not exercise such control over its dealerships' employees and therefore could not be held responsible for their unfair labor practices. Furthermore, he expressed concern about expanding federal jurisdiction into local business affairs without clear congressional intent to do so in NLRA legislation. This expansion could potentially disrupt state laws governing employment relationships and create confusion among businesses regarding their obligations under federal law.