CFTC's orders reviewable in the U.S. district courts, the CFTC was not granted the full powers of an Article III court, and the parties were given the option of invoking the agency's jurisdiction, rather than being compelled to use it. Furthermore, any issue of intrusion upon the powers of state courts was irrelevant, Justice O’Connor reasoned, because federal courts may exercise ancillary jurisdiction over state law claims anyway. Dissent Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, dissented on the grounds that allowing Congress to grant such jurisdictional powers to administrative agencies eroded the powers of Article III courts, and deprived litigants of the impartial decision-making authority of an independent judiciary. He accused the majority of putting concerns of convenience and judicial economy ahead of separation of powers. Also, because the individual and structural/separation of powers issues served by Article III were “coextensive”, Brennan reasoned that the consent of the litigants to appear before a non-Article III tribunal should have no bearing on the legal analysis in this case. See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 478 List of United States Supreme Court cases Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court References External links 1986 in United States case law Good Behavior Clause case law United States administrative case law United States commodity and futures case law United States Constitution Article Three case law United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court