In Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a jurisdictional issue related to securities law enforcement. The case involved an investor who filed suit in New York against an Arizona-based company and its auditors, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation of financial statements that led to significant investment losses. The defendants sought dismissal based on a provision in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 which stated that suits under this act could only be brought in the district where the defendant resides or conducts business, or wherever any act leading up to the violation occurred. The lower courts denied their motion for dismissal, but upon appeal, it was reversed by Second Circuit court stating that venue provisions were mandatory and exclusive. However, when appealed further to Supreme Court; they upheld Second Circuit's decision with 6-3 majority ruling emphasizing Congress' intent behind such specific venue provision within Securities Exchange Act as compared to general federal venue statute (which would have allowed lawsuit continuation at New York). This judgement clarified interpretation regarding conflicting statutes while also highlighting importance of legislative intent consideration during statutory construction.

In the dissenting opinion of RADZANOWER v. TOUCHE ROSS & CO., Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Douglas and Marshall, argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act was too narrow. They believed that this section should not be read as a jurisdictional provision but rather as one designed to ensure federal law uniformity in securities cases. The dissenters contended that allowing state courts to hear these cases could lead to inconsistent interpretations and applications of federal securities laws across different states, undermining Congress' intent when it enacted Section 27. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on forum shopping concerns; instead arguing such issues were secondary compared to ensuring consistent application and interpretation of federal law.