In the case of Wilko v. Swan et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled that an agreement to arbitrate future disputes was not enforceable in a Securities Act claim. The plaintiff, Robert Wilko, had signed an agreement with brokerage firm Hayden, Stone & Co., which included a clause requiring any dispute between them be resolved through arbitration rather than litigation. When Wilko later accused the company of fraud under Section 12(2) of the Securities Act and sought damages, he filed suit in federal court despite their prior agreement to arbitrate such issues. The defendants argued for dismissal based on this arbitration clause but were denied by both district and appellate courts before appealing to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld these decisions stating that agreements like this one "waive compliance" with provisions of securities laws designed for investor protection and are therefore unenforceable as they contradict public policy expressed within those laws. This ruling established precedent limiting contractual freedom where it conflicts with statutory rights or public interest.

The dissenting opinion in the Wilko v. Swan case argued that arbitration should be allowed as a method of dispute resolution under the Securities Act of 1933. The dissenters believed that there was no reason to assume an arbitrator would not enforce statutory rights, and thus saw no conflict between arbitration agreements and the enforcement of federal law. They also pointed out that other forms of alternative dispute resolution were permitted under federal law, so it seemed inconsistent to single out arbitration for exclusion. Furthermore, they noted that many investors might prefer arbitration because it is faster and less expensive than litigation in court. Therefore, they felt denying parties their contractual right to arbitrate disputes could actually harm investors more than protect them.