In the 1983 case, Securities Industry Association v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Board of Governors, allowing banks to offer retail brokerage services through separately identifiable departments or divisions (SID). The Securities Industry Association had challenged this practice arguing that it violated Section 20 and 32 of Glass-Steagall Act which prohibits commercial banks from being engaged in securities business. However, Justice Blackmun writing for majority held that as long as these SIDs were not themselves corporations or underwriters involved in distributing shares into open market but merely buying and selling already issued stocks on behalf their customers without any risk to bank's own assets, they did not violate said provisions. This decision allowed a significant expansion within banking industry towards offering wider range financial services.

In the dissenting opinion for SECURITIES INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION v. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM et al., Justice White disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Glass-Steagall Act, arguing that it was not Congress' intention to allow banks to engage in commercial activities such as securities underwriting. He believed that this would lead to a concentration of economic power and potential conflicts of interest, which were precisely what the Act sought to prevent. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress had intended for such an exception, they would have explicitly stated so in the legislation itself rather than leaving it up to regulatory agencies like Federal Reserve Board (FRB) or courts’ interpretations. Therefore, he concluded that FRB overstepped its authority by allowing bank holding companies' subsidiaries engaged in discount securities brokerage services.