In the 1983 case, Securities Industry Association et al. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Federal Reserve Board (FRB), allowing banks to offer discount brokerage services without violating Section 20 of Glass-Steagall Act which prohibits commercial banks from engaging in securities business. The Securities Industry Association (SIA) had challenged FRB's decision arguing that it violated this act and would lead to conflicts of interest and potential abuses by banks. However, Justice Blackmun writing for a unanimous court held that such services were not considered as "engaging in" securities business but merely an extension of traditional banking operations thus falling within exceptions provided under Section 16 permitting national banks to sell third-party investment products like mutual funds or annuities.

In the dissenting opinion for SECURITIES INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION v. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, Justice White argued that the majority's interpretation of the Bank Holding Company Act was incorrect and inconsistent with congressional intent. He believed that Congress intended to maintain a strict separation between banking and commerce, which would prohibit banks from underwriting commercial paper. The majority's decision allowed bank holding companies to engage in this activity through nonbank subsidiaries, which he saw as a clear violation of this principle. Furthermore, he disagreed with their view that commercial paper is equivalent to short-term loans; instead, he considered it more akin to securities due its tradability on secondary markets. Therefore, allowing banks into this market could lead them into risky speculative activities contrary to public interest.