The U.S. Supreme Court case Republic Steel Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board et al., 1940, centered around the issue of whether an employer could be compelled to rehire employees who had been dismissed for participating in a strike that was deemed illegal due to its violent nature. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) argued that the workers should be reinstated with back pay, despite their participation in violence during the strike, as long as they did not personally participate or incite others to do so. However, Republic Steel Corporation contended this would reward and encourage unlawful conduct by labor unions. In a decision favoring NLRB's stance, the court held that while employers have no obligation under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to employ persons who engage in acts of physical force or violence during strikes; if it is proven before NLRB that an employee has not participated in such activities but was only involved in peaceful picketing or lawful striking actions - then he/she cannot be denied employment on grounds of misconduct related to strikes.

In the dissenting opinion for Republic Steel Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). He believed that Congress did not intend to give such broad powers to labor unions under this law. According to him, it was wrong for the court to allow workers' representatives access into private property without any legal warrant or permission from owners. This could lead to potential abuse and violation of property rights by union organizers who might use their power irresponsibly. Furthermore, he disagreed with forcing employers like Republic Steel Corporation into collective bargaining agreements against their will as it violated principles of free enterprise and individual liberty which are fundamental in American society.