In the case of Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, Trustee, et al., 1978, the United States Supreme Court ruled that there was no implied private right of action under Section 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The court held that if Congress had intended to create such a remedy it would have done so explicitly in the statute itself rather than leaving it to judicial inference. This decision came after Redington sued an accounting firm for alleged negligence and misrepresentation in auditing financial statements required by federal law from a brokerage firm which later went bankrupt. The Supreme Court reversed lower courts' decisions allowing this claim based on an inferred right from Section 17(a), stating instead that any rights or remedies must be expressly provided by Congress.

In the dissenting opinion for Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, Trustee et al., Justice Brennan argued that Section 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act should be interpreted to imply a private right of action. He believed that Congress intended this section not just as an aid in enforcement by regulatory bodies but also as a means for individuals to seek redress against fraudulent practices in securities trading. The majority's narrow interpretation, he contended, undermined the broader purpose and spirit of federal securities laws - protecting investors and maintaining public confidence in financial markets. Furthermore, he disagreed with their view on legislative silence regarding implied rights; instead asserting it was more likely due to lawmakers assuming courts would continue recognizing such rights under similar statutes rather than intending its denial.