In the case of Robertson v. Railroad Labor Board (1924), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a federal law establishing a board to arbitrate labor disputes in the railroad industry was constitutional, despite objections from employers who argued it violated their due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. The court held that Congress had broad powers to regulate interstate commerce and could therefore create such an agency to prevent strikes or other disruptions in vital industries like railroads. However, while upholding its constitutionality, they also found that this particular board lacked enforcement power for its decisions; thus making them more advisory than binding on parties involved.

In the dissenting opinion for Robertson v. Railroad Labor Board, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justices Brandeis and Sanford, disagreed with the majority's decision to strike down a federal law establishing a board to mediate labor disputes in railroads. The dissent argued that Congress had constitutional authority under its power to regulate interstate commerce to establish such a board. They contended that strikes could disrupt interstate commerce and therefore it was within Congress' purview to take measures preventing them. Furthermore, they believed that the court should defer more heavily towards legislative judgment when deciding on matters of economic regulation unless there is clear violation of individual rights or procedural fairness which wasn't evident in this case according their interpretation.