In the case of Local 24, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO et al. v. Oliver et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of truck drivers who were expelled from their union for refusing to participate in an illegal strike. The court held that under Section 101(a)(5) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), unions are required to provide members with written specific charges if they face disciplinary action; a fair hearing must also be given before any discipline is imposed. In this case, these requirements were not met as the plaintiffs did not receive notice or have an opportunity for a hearing prior to their expulsion from the union.

In the dissenting opinion for the case Local 24, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO v. Oliver et al., Justice Brennan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a union shop agreement was inconsistent with previous rulings on labor law. He contended that such an agreement violated employees' rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by forcing them to financially support a union they did not wish to join or maintain membership in. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Congress' intent when it amended Section 8(a)(3) through Taft-Hartley Act; according to him, this amendment was meant only as a limited exception allowing unions and employers to require financial contributions from nonmembers for collective bargaining purposes but not full membership dues. Therefore, he believed that any compulsory payment exceeding what is necessary for representation should be considered unlawful coercion under NLRA.