Readers of the New York Times were not accustomed to encountering in its pages a Cabinet official picking a fight with the Supreme Court, but that is what they did on May 8, 1938. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, writing for a majority of the Supreme Court, had recently ruled that Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace had used the wrong procedures to set the rates that “commission men” charged farmers for marketing cattle, pigs, and sheep at Kansas City's stockyards. It was the second time the case had come before the Court. On the previous occasion, the justices had sent the case back to the lower courts to determine whether the secretary had personally studied the factual record before issuing the rates. In fact, Wallace had given the matter “more personal attention than any previous Secretary of Agriculture had ever given to any case under the Packers and Stockyards Act or for that matter any half dozen cases,” so when the case returned to the Court, the justices had to shift their ground. Now they objected that the Department of Agriculture had not revealed its case to the commission men, leaving them with no way of addressing the government's arguments. Wallace fumed that Hughes had implied that “the present Administration” was to blame for the procedures he followed, when in fact earlier, Republican administrations had established them. Besides, the procedures had already been revised in light of the Supreme Court's first decision in the case.

On June 5, 1920, Congress established the Women's Bureau, charging it to “formulate standards and policies which shall promote the welfare of wage-earning women, improve their working conditions, increase their efficiency, and advance their opportunities for profitable employment.” Support for the bureau was such that the House passed the bill by a vote of 255 to 10, and the Senate passed it without a recorded vote, though the Monthly Labor Review noted that “there was some opposition.” During a decade when policymakers celebrated the fruits of economic abundance garnered with only the lightest touch from the state, bureau leaders and investigators saw gender research as a form of labor activism that would advance the cause of all workers. The bureau provided a unique site for discourse and deliberation concerning labor standards that did not exist in any other branch of the federal government. No other organization in the federal government thought harder about how policies could be constructed to protect workers, irrespective of gender, from the continued harsh reality of employment in American industry. Along the way, advocates of protective legislation for women sought not only to protect the particular interests of women workers, but also to drive a wedge through a post-Adkins understanding of the “right to contract” and to expand the number of issues that should be seen as affected with a public interest.

In February 1936, a former federal government worker named Gussie E. Howell penned a letter to Grace Brewer, director of the Governmental Workers' Council (gwc) of the National Woman's Party (nwp). Howell, who lived in Texas, had apparently heard from colleagues about a questionnaire sent out by the nwp about the effects of Section 213 of the Economy Act of 1932 (“Section 213”). Howell said that while she had not seen the questionnaire, she wanted to describe the effect of Section 213 on her life.

In January 1973, American Telephone & Telegraph, then the world's largest private-sector employer, entered into a Consent Decree with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In this decree, following a fourteen-month dispute before the Federal Communications Commission, at&t agreed to implement specific goals and timetables for hiring women in traditionally male jobs, men in traditionally female jobs, and minorities in jobs in which they had been traditionally underrepresented. at&t's adoption of affirmative action immediately preceded the routine application of affirmative action hiring and promotion policies in large, private-sector U.S. firms regardless of federal contractor status. Nonetheless, the importance of at&t's action remains misunderstood by critics and supporters of affirmative action alike.