In the 1983 case, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) et al. v. Jerry T. O'Brien, Inc., et al., the SEC sought to enforce subpoenas issued against several individuals and corporations suspected of insider trading violations under Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 32(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The respondents argued that they were entitled to notice before their telephone records were subpoenaed from third-party telephone companies as part of an investigation into potential securities law violations by them or their associates. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of SEC stating that targets or potential defendants in a noncriminal investigation do not have a constitutional right to notice when investigators obtain information about them from third parties using lawful methods such as subpoenas directed at those third parties rather than at themselves directly. This decision upheld the power for regulatory agencies like SEC to conduct investigations without alerting subjects until charges are ready to be filed.

In the dissenting opinion for SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION et al. v. JERRY T. O'BRIEN, INC., et al., Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to allow the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to withhold information about informants in civil cases was a departure from established legal principles of discovery rights and fairness in litigation. He contended that this ruling could potentially undermine defendants' ability to prepare their defense adequately by denying them access to crucial evidence or witnesses who might support their case. Furthermore, he expressed concern over granting such broad powers of secrecy to an administrative agency like the SEC without clear legislative mandate or compelling justification, fearing it may lead towards excessive governmental intrusion into private affairs.