In the case of Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants in 1988, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a federal court could not issue an injunction to end a strike by flight attendants against Trans World Airlines (TWA) under the Norris-LaGuardia Act. The act restricts courts' power to issue injunctions in labor disputes unless specific conditions are met. TWA had argued that it was entitled to an injunction because it faced irreparable harm from the strike and there were no adequate remedies at law available for them as they would go bankrupt if their operations continued being disrupted by strikes. However, Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of a unanimous court stating that economic hardship does not constitute "irreparable injury" within meaning of anti-injunction provision and thus cannot be used as grounds for issuing such an order.

In the dissenting opinion for Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the Railway Labor Act (RLA). He contended that TWA and its flight attendants were in a "major dispute," which should have been resolved through collective bargaining rather than court intervention. The RLA, he stated, is designed to promote stability in labor relations by encouraging negotiation and mediation over judicial or administrative action. By allowing TWA to unilaterally impose new working conditions on its employees without first exhausting all avenues of negotiation and mediation as required under RLA procedures for major disputes, Blackmun believed that the Court undermined this goal. Furthermore, he expressed concern about setting a precedent where employers could easily circumvent their obligations under federal labor law simply by declaring an impasse in negotiations.