In the case of Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Barbour et al., 1974, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the liquidation of broker-dealers under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA). The court held that state courts do not have concurrent jurisdiction in such matters. The decision came after a dispute between investors and their brokerage firm which was being liquidated under SIPA by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC). Investors had filed claims in a state court against SIPC, arguing they were entitled to additional protections beyond those provided by SIPA. However, SIPC argued these claims should be dismissed because only federal courts could hear them as per SIPA's provisions. In its ruling, the Supreme Court sided with SIPC stating that Congress intended for all litigation related to a single failed brokerage to be centralized in one federal forum.

In the dissenting opinion for SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORP. v. BARBOUR et al., Justice Douglas argued that the majority's interpretation of the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) was too narrow and did not adequately protect investors as intended by Congress. He contended that SIPA should cover all customers who entrust money or securities to a broker, regardless of whether they have an open account with them at the time of failure. The majority’s decision, he believed, would leave many innocent victims unprotected in cases where brokers misappropriate customer funds without making corresponding entries in their accounts - a common form of fraud which SIPA was designed to combat. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that customers must file claims within 60 days after publication notice; instead arguing for a more flexible approach given potential difficulties faced by claimants in meeting this deadline.