The case of William E. Arnold Co. v. Carpenters District Council of Jacksonville and Vicinity et al., 1973, revolved around the issue of labor disputes and picketing activities by unions. The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court could prohibit peaceful picketing aimed at persuading customers not to patronize a neutral employer in order to pressure that employer into ceasing business with another company involved in a labor dispute with the union (secondary boycott). In this case, the union had been engaged in such secondary activity against William E Arnold Co., which supplied materials for construction projects where non-union workers were employed. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that federal law preempted state law on this matter as it fell within an area Congress intended to be controlled by federal legislation - specifically, National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Therefore, states couldn't regulate or restrict these types of secondary boycotts through injunctions because they are federally protected activities under NLRA unless they involve violence or threats thereof.

In the dissenting opinion for William E. Arnold Co. v. Carpenters District Council of Jacksonville and Vicinity, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established labor law principles which traditionally allowed unions to picket at common situs locations where multiple employers were present, even if their dispute was only with one employer. He contended that this ruling would severely limit union power by restricting their ability to protest in places where they could effectively communicate their grievances to the public and other workers. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) provisions regarding secondary boycotts, arguing it went against congressional intent when enacting these laws.