The United States v. Hutcheson et al., 1940, was a Supreme Court case that dealt with the interpretation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and its application to labor unions. The defendants were leaders of a labor union who had been charged with conspiracy for attempting to monopolize trade in violation of the Sherman Act. They argued that their actions were protected by federal labor laws, specifically Section 20 of the Clayton Act and parts of the Norris-LaGuardia Act which exempted certain union activities from antitrust prosecution. The Supreme Court agreed with them, ruling unanimously in favor of Hutcheson and his co-defendants. In essence, this decision confirmed that traditional union activities such as strikes or boycotts did not constitute illegal conspiracies under antitrust law unless they involved additional unlawful conduct beyond what is typical for collective bargaining.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Hutcheson et al., Justice Roberts argued that the majority's interpretation of the Norris-LaGuardia Act was incorrect and overly broad, effectively giving labor unions immunity from federal antitrust laws. He contended that this decision would allow unions to engage in activities such as secondary boycotts, which Congress had not intended when it passed the Act. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses of power by labor organizations and warned against allowing them to operate without any legal constraints or oversight. In his view, while workers should have rights to organize and bargain collectively, these rights should be balanced with protections for employers' property rights and freedom of commerce.