The case of Deckert et al. v. Independence Shares Corp. et al., 1940, revolved around a dispute over the Securities Act of 1933 and whether it allowed for private rights to action in federal courts against alleged violators who made false statements in securities registration statements. The plaintiffs, shareholders in Independence Shares Corporation, sued on behalf of themselves and other stockholders alleging that the defendants had violated the Securities Act by making misleading statements about their financial condition which led to significant losses for investors when they purchased shares at inflated prices based on these misrepresentations. The Supreme Court ruled that while there was no explicit provision within the act allowing such suits, an implied right to sue existed under common law principles as a means for aggrieved parties to seek redress from fraudulent practices related to securities transactions. This decision established important precedent regarding investor protection rights under U.S federal securities laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Deckert et al. v. Independence Shares Corp. et al., Justice Roberts disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 22(a) of the Securities Act, arguing that it was not intended to give federal courts jurisdiction over all suits brought by security holders against issuers and underwriters without any consideration as to whether there is a substantial federal question involved in the case or not. He contended that such an interpretation would result in a significant expansion of federal court jurisdiction beyond what Congress had intended when they passed this legislation, which could potentially lead to an overload of cases being transferred from state courts to federal ones unnecessarily. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress had indeed wanted such broad jurisdictional powers for these types of cases, they would have explicitly stated so within the statute itself instead of leaving it up for judicial interpretation.