Litigants and attorneys often assume—wrongly—that arbitration proceedings are completely confidential. In fact, there are many ways that private arbitration proceedings can become subject to public scrutiny.
The Court has started the week with three decisions emphasizing textual readings, two of them unanimous and a third drawing Justice Kagan into the majority with the Court’s six nominal jurisprudential conservatives.
There has been a good deal of recent attention given to the Supreme Court's so-called "shadow docket," a term that refers generally to the Court's (conservative majority's) issuing brief orders and unsigned opinions resolving procedural motions in a way that effectively disposes of cases, but without their having been fully briefed and argued.
The Court has decided the latest in a series of important cases interpreting the reach of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. §§ 1 et seq.
On March 31, in Badgerow v. Walters, by an 8-1 majority (opinion written by Justice Kagan, and a lone dissent by Justice Breyer), the Court reversed an order of the Fifth Circuit and held that the federal courts do not have authority to “look through” an arbitration dispute for a federal question that would establish jurisdiction to confirm or deny an arbitral award.
Recent Updates
- ABA and FWA: Compliance Best Practices
- Regulatory Scrutiny in ABA: What Providers Need to Know About Compliance Oversight
- When Clear Drafting is Not Enough: Fifth Circuit Rejects a “Sole Discretion” Arbitration Clause
- ABA and FWA: Legitimate Providers Operate in a High-Risk Environment
- Powerful Tool, but Not an Attorney: Massachusetts Court Rejects Work Product Protection for AI-Generated Documents