The U.S. Supreme Court case Retail Clerks International Association, Local 1625, AFL-CIO v. Schermerhorn et al., dealt with the issue of whether non-union employees could be compelled to pay union dues under a "union shop" agreement in Florida - a state with right-to-work laws prohibiting such arrangements. The plaintiffs were three retail clerks who objected to being forced to join the union and pay dues as a condition of their employment. They argued that this violated Florida's right-to-work law and sought an injunction against enforcement of the union shop agreement by their employer and the defendant labor organization. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that federal labor law did not preempt state right-to-work laws regarding compulsory payment of union dues or fees by non-members for collective bargaining representation services provided by unions certified as exclusive bargaining representatives under federal law. Therefore, it was within Florida's power to enforce its own legislation on this matter without interference from federal authorities or courts.

In the dissenting opinion for Retail Clerks International Association, Local 1625, AFL-CIO v. Schermerhorn et al., Justice Goldberg argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act was incorrect and overly broad. He contended that this section should not be interpreted to allow states to ban union shop agreements entirely but rather only those which compel membership as a condition of employment beyond paying dues and fees. He believed that such an expansive reading undermined national labor policy favoring collective bargaining and could potentially lead to significant disruption in labor relations across different states due to varying interpretations of what constitutes compulsory unionism prohibited by state law. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on legislative history arguing it was inconclusive at best.