In the case of Ross et al., Trustees v. Bernhard et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a right to jury trial exists in derivative actions under Rule 23.1 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs shareholder derivative suits in federal courts. The court held that whether a party has a right to jury trial depends on the nature of the issue at hand and not on whether it is legally characterized as "equitable" or "legal". In this particular case, shareholders brought an action against trustees alleging mismanagement and breach of trust; issues traditionally tried by juries before merger of law and equity courts were involved here - hence they had constitutional rights for these claims to be heard by a jury.

In the dissenting opinion for Ross et al., Trustees v. Bernhard et al., Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to allow a jury trial in this case, arguing that it was inconsistent with historical practice and could lead to unnecessary complications. He pointed out that traditionally, equity cases like this one were decided by judges rather than juries due to their complex nature. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential confusion arising from having both legal and equitable claims heard together before a jury. This could result in different standards of proof being applied inconsistently within the same case or even within the same claim. Additionally, Justice Harlan warned against expanding Seventh Amendment rights without careful consideration of its implications on judicial efficiency and consistency.