In the 1933 case Local 167, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Etc., et al. v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute between labor unions and their employers regarding collective bargaining rights under the Sherman Antitrust Act. The union argued that they were exempt from antitrust laws because they were not engaged in commerce but rather in labor disputes with their employers. However, the court disagreed and held that when unions conspire to restrain trade or commerce among several states through strikes or boycotts aimed at forcing non-unionized businesses into accepting closed-shop agreements (an agreement where an employer agrees to hire only union members), such actions fall within the purview of federal antitrust laws. This ruling was significant as it limited some powers of labor unions by subjecting them to federal regulation under certain circumstances.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Local 167, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Etc., et al. v. United States (1933), Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold an injunction against a labor union was incorrect because it violated principles of equity and federal law. He contended that there was no evidence showing irreparable harm or violation of property rights by the union members' peaceful picketing activities which would justify such an extreme measure as an injunction. Furthermore, he pointed out that Congress had explicitly limited courts' power to issue injunctions in labor disputes through Norris-LaGuardia Act and this ruling disregarded those legislative restrictions on judicial authority. In his view, this case represented a dangerous overreach by judiciary into matters better left to legislative bodies and negotiation between employers and workers.