To that end, Congress created an administrative agency called the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

The section of the statute and the CFTC regulation at issue in this case, both of which were intended to provide an inexpensive and expeditious method for the settlement of futures contract-related claims, were challenged by the customers of a broker as being violative of Article III of the United States Constitution.

Conti then voluntarily dismissed the suit, in order to present its counterclaim against Schor for the debit balance as a defense in the CFTC action.

The situation faced by the litigants here was common: a claim and counterclaim arising out of the same transaction and occurrence, and it was well within the statutory jurisdiction of the CFTC to adjudicate such both actions.

This is in keeping with Congress’ intent to create a more efficient means of adjudicating such disputes, as well as the administration's interpretation of the statute.

Justice O’Connor chose to interpret Article III liberally, examining the underlying purposes of adjudication of cases by an independent judiciary.

In this case, Schor waived his right to a trial with respect to Conti's counterclaim, and elected to have the entire dispute resolved before the CFTC.