The U.S. Supreme Court case San Diego Building Trades Council et al. v. Garmon et al., 1956, centered around the issue of jurisdiction between state and federal courts in labor disputes under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The dispute began when an employer sued a union for picketing with an intent to force him into signing a union agreement, which was against California law but not explicitly addressed by NLRA. Initially, the California court issued an injunction against the union's picketing activities and awarded damages to the employer based on state law. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court, it was ruled that even if certain conduct is merely arguably subject to Section 7 or Section 8 of NLRA - provisions protecting employees' rights and defining unfair labor practices respectively - states must defer jurisdiction to National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), unless NLRB clearly indicates otherwise. This decision effectively preempted state interference in areas potentially covered by federal labor laws.

In the dissenting opinion for San Diego Building Trades Council et al. v. Garmon et al., Justice Frankfurter, joined by Justices Burton and Harlan, argued that the majority's decision to preempt state jurisdiction over labor disputes was overly broad and inconsistent with previous court rulings. They contended that Congress did not intend for federal law to occupy the field of labor relations so completely as to exclude any role for state courts or legislatures in regulating conduct tangentially related to collective bargaining agreements. The dissenters believed that states should retain some power over local economic affairs unless their actions directly conflict with national policy objectives set out in federal statutes like the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). They also expressed concern about potential negative impacts on workers' rights if states were barred from providing additional protections beyond those guaranteed under federal law.