In the case of Marrese et al. v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (1984), two orthopedic surgeons sued the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons for antitrust violations, claiming that they were unfairly denied membership to the organization which limited their ability to practice medicine effectively. The District Court dismissed their claim and this decision was upheld by a federal appeals court on grounds that it lacked jurisdiction because state courts had already ruled on related issues in a prior lawsuit between these parties. The Supreme Court held that federal courts do have jurisdiction over such cases under certain circumstances but remanded the case back to lower courts for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. It clarified that while res judicata - a principle preventing relitigation of an issue previously decided - may apply, it does not necessarily bar all claims arising from same transaction or series if state law permits them being brought separately.

In the dissenting opinion for Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 1738 and its application to federal antitrust claims. He argued that this section should not be applied in a way that would bar a plaintiff from bringing an antitrust claim in federal court simply because they had previously litigated related state-law issues. According to him, such an approach could potentially deny plaintiffs their right to have their federal claims heard by a federal forum - something Congress intended when it enacted the Clayton Act. Furthermore, he believed that applying Section 1738 in this manner could lead to inconsistent judgments between state and federal courts on similar issues due to differences in legal standards and procedures.