In the case of United Paperworkers International Union, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Misco, Inc., 1987, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that courts should not interfere with arbitration awards unless they are in clear violation of public policy. The dispute arose when an employee was fired by Misco for allegedly using marijuana on company property and endangering safety standards. The union contested this termination through arbitration as per their collective bargaining agreement with the company and won reinstatement for the worker based on insufficient evidence provided by Misco to justify its action. However, a federal district court overturned this decision stating it violated public policy against drug use in workplaces which was upheld by an appellate court later. The Supreme Court reversed these decisions arguing that while courts can intervene if arbitrator's decisions violate explicit public policies; such intervention requires more than general considerations about safety or legality but rather needs clearly defined laws or legal precedents demonstrating such violations explicitly.

In the dissenting opinion for United Paperworkers International Union, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Misco, Inc., Justice White disagreed with the majority's decision to overturn an arbitrator’s ruling that reinstated a discharged employee who was found in possession of marijuana on company property. He argued that federal courts should not have such broad authority to review arbitration decisions and emphasized respect for collective bargaining agreements between unions and employers which often include binding arbitration clauses as a means of resolving disputes. He contended that unless an arbitrator's award is clearly contrary to public policy or there is strong evidence indicating serious error by the arbitrator, it should be upheld by courts even if they disagree with its merits. In this case, he believed neither condition had been met; hence he would have affirmed the judgment of Court of Appeals upholding the arbitrator’s decision.