In the case of Retail Clerks International Association, Local 1625, AFL-CIO v. Schermerhorn et al., the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a Florida "right-to-work" law conflicted with federal labor laws. The state law prohibited union shop agreements that required employees to join unions as a condition of employment. The plaintiffs argued this contradicted Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act which allowed states to regulate such agreements. However, in its decision, the court held that there was no conflict between federal and state laws because Congress had intended for states to have authority over these matters under Section 14(b). Therefore, Florida's right-to-work law did not infringe upon any federally protected rights or contradict any provisions within national labor legislation.

In the dissenting opinion for Retail Clerks International Association, Local 1625, AFL-CIO v. Schermerhorn et al., Justice Harlan argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act was too narrow and failed to consider its broader implications. He contended that Congress intended this section to allow states to regulate union security agreements in their entirety, not just those involving compulsory union membership. The majority's decision would effectively limit state power over these agreements and undermine federal labor policy promoting voluntary collective bargaining. Furthermore, he criticized the Court for failing to defer to Florida’s Supreme Court interpretation of its own right-to-work law as covering all forms of coerced financial support for a labor organization.