In the case of Swinson v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co., 1934, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to examine whether a state court's decision could be reviewed by federal courts if it involved issues related to federal law. The plaintiff, Swinson had been injured while working for the railway company and sought compensation under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). However, his claim was denied by a Wisconsin state court which ruled that he wasn't engaged in interstate commerce at the time of his injury - a requirement under FELA. On appeal to the Supreme Court, it held that since this interpretation didn't involve an assertion of any right or immunity protected by federal laws but rather hinged on facts specific to Swinson's employment conditions; hence there were no grounds for review in federal courts as per Section 237(a) of Judicial Code.

The dissenting opinion in Swinson v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling denying damages to an injured railway worker was incorrect and unjust. The dissent contended that the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) should have been interpreted more broadly to protect workers like Swinson who were injured on the job due to their employer’s negligence. They believed that FELA was enacted specifically for such cases and its purpose is defeated if it cannot be applied here where there is clear evidence of negligence by the company leading directly to injury of an employee. Furthermore, they disagreed with how causation had been determined in this case as well as how contributory negligence had been assessed against Swinson himself.