The Supreme Court recently granted cert to address the issue of whether federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an arbitration award under Sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act when the only basis for jurisdiction is that the underlying dispute involved a federal question (Badgerow v. Walters, No. 20-1143).
Prof. Imre Szalai, suspects that the Court, to maintain a robust framework supporting arbitration, will extend the “look-through” approach adopted in Vaden (for motions to compel arbitration) to situations to confirm or vacate an arbitral award. He tends to view the FAA as a comprehensive, unitary statute, and so the jurisdictional theory from section 4 of the FAA could (and in his opinion should) arguably extend to the confirmation and vacatur of awards under sections 9 and 10. One contrary argument is that the FAA was never intended to cover the arbitral resolution of federal question/statutory claims, but that ship has long sailed.
This article first appeared on the Arbitration USA Blog, here. Earlier today, Facebook’s Oversight Board issued its decision regarding Donald Trump’s suspension from Facebook arising from his postings about the US Capitol...
By Imre SzalaiIntroduction and Unanswered Questions Airplane cargo loaders and ramp supervisors are now able to bring a claim for overtime pay in court, rather than being forced into arbitration. In...
By Brittany MunnIn this episode of the Arbitration Conversation, Amy interviews Chris Poole Chief Executive Officer of JAMS, the largest provider of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services worldwide. Poole joined JAMS in...
By Chris Poole, Amy Schmitz
With the purchase of a Featured Membership, you will be shown on the front page of Arbitrate.com to web site visitors from your city and region (“state” if you are in the USA). You may appear in more than one city/region by purchasing additional locations.
