Law Commons^™

A Muddy Mess: The Supreme Court’S Jurisprudence On Jurisdiction For Arbitration Matters, Kristen M. Blankley

University of Miami Law Review

The Supreme Court’s 2022 Badgerow v. Waters decision at- tempts to create a bright-line rule regarding access to federal courts to hear arbitration matters. On its face, the Badgerow majority opinion reads like a straightforward exercise in textualism. Badgerow interpreted the judicial test for jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provision regarding vacatur differently than it interpreted the jurisdictional test for a motion to compel under a different part of the statute. However, Badgerow leaves courts, which were already struggling to decipher the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision of Vaden v. Discover Bank, with a significant number of outstanding questions. …

In Defense Of Moses, Tamar Meshel

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

In 1925, Congress enacted a short statute to make arbitration agreements in maritime transactions and interstate commerce “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable.” Yet the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) simple objective of facilitating the resolution of disputes outside of the courtroom has proven much easier to declare than to implement in practice. In the century since its enactment, the FAA has become a frequently litigated statute and the subject of 59 opinions of the Supreme Court, the majority of which have reversed lower courts’ interpretations of the Act. The Supreme Court’s FAA jurisprudence has not only been abundant but also controversial. …