In the case of Thomas v. Hempt Brothers, a dispute arose over an agreement made between two parties: Thomas and Hempt Brothers. The agreement was that Thomas would sell his land to Hempt Brothers if they agreed not to mine limestone from it for 15 years. However, after purchasing the property, Hempt Brothers began mining operations before the stipulated period had elapsed. As a result, Thomas sued them for breach of contract and sought damages. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Thomas on grounds that there was indeed a valid contract between him and the Hempts which they breached by starting their mining operations prematurely. This decision upheld that agreements should be honored as per their terms unless otherwise stated or amended by both parties involved.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Thomas v. Hempt Brothers argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Pennsylvania law prohibiting picketing at private residences was an infringement on First Amendment rights. The dissent contended that peaceful picketing is a form of expression protected by the Constitution, regardless of location. They believed that this right should not be limited unless it poses a clear and present danger or threat to public safety or order, which they did not believe was demonstrated in this case. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential misuse of such laws to suppress labor movements and other forms of protest against private entities.