The U.S. Supreme Court case Transportation-Communication Employees Union v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 1966, revolved around the interpretation of a provision in the Railway Labor Act that prohibited "any company to influence or coerce employees in an effort to induce them to join or remain or not to join or remain members of any labor organization". The plaintiff, Transportation-Communication Employees Union (TCEU), alleged that the defendant, Union Pacific Railroad Company had violated this provision by offering benefits such as free transportation for non-striking workers during a strike called by TCEU. The court ruled in favor of the railroad company stating that providing these benefits did not constitute coercion and was merely an attempt by the employer to continue operations during a strike. This decision clarified how far employers could go in trying to maintain their business operations during strikes without violating employee rights under federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for Transportation-Communication Employees Union v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent and an overreach of judicial power. He contended that Congress, not the courts, should be responsible for determining whether or not labor disputes fall within its jurisdiction under Railway Labor Act (RLA). Douglas believed that by deciding this case in favor of Union Pacific Railroad Company, the court had effectively rewritten parts of RLA to exclude certain types of labor disputes from its purview - something he saw as beyond their constitutional authority. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative impacts on workers' rights and union bargaining power resulting from this ruling.