 Justice Souter wrote a separate dissent which was joined by the other three Justices who signed onto Stevens'dissent as listed above. He mainly attacked the method of the majority's statutory reading and its failure to look at the statute "as a whole". He wrote, "It is imputing something very odd to the working of the congressional brain to say that Congress took care to bar application of the Act to the class of employment contracts it most obviously had authority to legislate about in 1925 ..." With that understanding of the Act, he would have affirmed the decision and holding of the Ninth Circuit.
