In the 1941 case United States v. Local 807 of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen & Helpers of America et al., the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a labor union that had been accused by the federal government for violating anti-racketeering laws. The union members were charged with extorting money from out-of-state truck drivers who wanted to deliver goods in New York City. However, they argued that their actions were protected under labor law exemptions because they sought to equalize pay rates between local and non-local workers. The court agreed with this argument and held that Congress did not intend for these activities to fall within the scope of racketeering laws when it enacted them as part of broader efforts to regulate interstate commerce.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Local 807 of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen & Helpers of America et al., Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's interpretation was too broad and went against Congress' intent when drafting the Hobbs Act. He contended that this law was meant to target traditional forms of robbery and extortion rather than labor disputes or strikes. The union's actions in demanding payment from out-of-state truck drivers for work they did not perform were seen by him as a form of picketing or strike action rather than extortion under federal law. Furthermore, he believed it would be more appropriate for such issues to be handled at a state level instead.