The U.S. Supreme Court case Washington, Virginia & Maryland Coach Co. v. National Labor Relations Board in 1936 revolved around the issue of labor rights and unionization within a private company. The Washington, Virginia & Maryland Coach Company challenged the legitimacy of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), arguing that it did not have to comply with its provisions because its business was purely intrastate and therefore outside federal jurisdiction under interstate commerce regulations. However, the Supreme Court ruled against them stating that even though their operations were confined within one state, they still had an impact on interstate commerce due to their connections with other transportation companies operating across state lines; hence they fell under federal jurisdiction as per NLRA rules which protected employees' right to form unions without employer interference or retaliation.

In the dissenting opinion for Washington, Virginia & Maryland Coach Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, Justice James Clark McReynolds argued that the majority's decision to uphold the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was a dangerous overreach of federal power into private business affairs. He contended that Congress had no authority under interstate commerce regulations to force employers to engage in collective bargaining with unions or prevent them from engaging in unfair labor practices as defined by NLRA. According to him, these matters were more appropriately left up to individual states and their respective laws governing employer-employee relations rather than being dictated at a national level by federal legislation like NLRA. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses of power and violations of due process rights resulting from this broad interpretation of congressional authority over interstate commerce.