The case of Street v. Shipowners' Association of the Pacific Coast in 1923 was a dispute between seamen and shipowners regarding labor rights. The plaintiff, Street, represented himself and other seamen engaged in interstate and foreign commerce by sea. He argued that certain practices by the defendant, the Shipowners' Association of the Pacific Coast, violated their rights under federal antitrust laws. Specifically, they objected to a "closed shop" agreement which required all sailors to be members of a particular union chosen by employers as part of their employment contract - an arrangement they claimed restrained trade unlawfully. However, after considering both sides’ arguments carefully, the Supreme Court ruled against Street's claims. They held that such agreements were not illegal per se under federal law because they did not unduly restrain trade or monopolize any part thereof within meaning and intent of Sherman Anti-Trust Act; rather it was seen as an acceptable way for employers to ensure labor stability on their ships.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Street v. Shipowners' Association of the Pacific Coast argued that the majority's decision to uphold a California law prohibiting seamen from suing their employers for damages resulting from negligence or unseaworthiness was incorrect. The dissenters believed this law violated both federal maritime laws and constitutional rights, specifically those related to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. They contended that by denying seamen access to legal recourse, it unfairly favored ship owners at workers' expense. Furthermore, they asserted that such state legislation interfered with Congress's authority over interstate commerce and maritime matters as established by Article I Section 8 Clause 3 (the Commerce Clause) of the U.S Constitution.