The case of Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen et al., 1944, revolved around the issue of racial discrimination within labor unions. The plaintiff, Tunstall, was a black locomotive fireman who alleged that he had been denied membership to the defendant union solely based on his race and as a result suffered job loss due to discriminatory practices by both the union and his employer. He sought damages for lost wages under federal law which prohibited such discrimination in employment contracts. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him stating that while it condemned racial discrimination in general terms, there were no specific provisions within federal law at that time which could be applied to this particular situation involving labor unions' internal policies or procedures regarding membership eligibility criteria.

In the dissenting opinion for Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen et al., Justice Robert H. Jackson argued that the majority's decision to allow a union to exclude African American workers from membership, thereby preventing them from obtaining employment, was not only morally wrong but also legally incorrect. He contended that such discrimination violated both federal law and constitutional principles of equal protection under the law. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Railway Labor Act provisions as permitting racial discrimination by unions in their membership policies; instead, he believed these provisions were intended to prevent such discriminatory practices. Thus, Justice Jackson concluded that allowing this type of exclusionary policy would undermine labor rights and equality before the law.