In the case of San Diego Building Trades Council et al. v. Garmon et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that when an activity is arguably subject to Section 7 or Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), states must defer to the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The dispute began when a California state court issued an injunction against a labor union for picketing, which was considered peaceful and not in violation of any law, at Garmon's place of business with intent to force him into joining their council. The Supreme Court held that although states generally have jurisdiction over activities causing damage within their borders, they cannot regulate activities protected by Section 7 or prohibited by Section 8 unless Congress clearly permits them to do so because these areas are under federal control through NLRB’s authority.

The dissenting opinion in the case of San Diego Building Trades Council et al. v. Garmon et al., 1958, argued that the majority's decision to preempt state jurisdiction over labor disputes was too broad and could potentially undermine states' rights. The dissenters believed that there should be a balance between federal and state power in regulating labor relations, with each having its own sphere of influence depending on the nature of the dispute at hand. They contended that not all labor disputes have significant impacts on interstate commerce or national labor policy, thus they should not always fall under federal jurisdiction as per the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Instead, these cases should be left for states to handle according to their respective laws unless it can be clearly demonstrated that they would interfere with national interests if left within state control. This approach would respect both federal supremacy in matters affecting interstate commerce and preserve states’ authority over local affairs.