The Supreme Court case In re James Pollitz, 1906, involved a dispute over the jurisdiction of federal courts in bankruptcy proceedings. The petitioner, James Pollitz, was a stockbroker who had been declared bankrupt and his assets were being administered by a receiver appointed by the state court. However, some of his creditors filed for involuntary bankruptcy against him in federal court. Pollitz argued that since he was already under the jurisdiction of the state court when they filed their petition in federal court; therefore, it did not have jurisdiction to declare him bankrupt or administer his estate. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and ruled that filing an involuntary bankruptcy petition is not an action against a person but rather one against their property. Therefore it does not matter if another proceeding involving them is ongoing at the time of filing as long as no final judgment has been made regarding their property yet. This ruling clarified that federal courts do have concurrent jurisdiction with state courts over matters related to insolvency and can exercise this power even if there are pending actions concerning these issues before other tribunals.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re James Pollitz argued that the petitioner, a stockbroker who had been held in contempt for refusing to answer questions about his business before a grand jury, should not be compelled to testify. The dissenting justices believed that compelling testimony from an individual under threat of punishment violated their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. They also expressed concern over potential abuses of power by grand juries and prosecutors if individuals could be forced to provide potentially incriminating evidence against themselves. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "transaction" within securities law context and felt it was too broad and vague which might lead to unjust outcomes.