International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO v. Allied International, Inc., 456 U.S. 212 (1982), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that a trade union that refused to unload cargo from the Soviet Union in protest against the invasion of Afghanistan had engaged in a secondary boycott, an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act.

[4]: 1082 John Rubin, writing on the significance of the case, noted:[5]: 124 By abandoning the requirement of a primary labor dispute, the Court apparently extended the statutory ban to all politically motivated strikes and picketing.

The Allied decision also forebodes a complete ban on the use of collective bargaining in pursuit of political objectives since section 8(e) of the Act, in essence, prohibits a union and employer from implementing a secondary boycott through a voluntary agreement.

This blunt-edged approach gives insufficient consideration to the important first amendment questions raised by political activities and to policy questions concerning the proper scope of union representation of members' interests.Julius Getman, writing at the time as Professor of Law at Yale University, noted the incongruity in the Court's reasoning between this case and NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., which upheld the right to engage in boycotts:[6]: 16–17 Both unions and employers have cause to be confused and offended.

The distinction drawn between the economic activity involved in the labor cases and the political activity relating to public issues is analytically unsound, historically inaccurate, and culturally myopic....To suggest that one goal is of greater public concern than the other is to view labor through the Court's artificially created prism by which collective bargaining becomes dissociated from any broader, nobler, more enduring purpose.