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. …

Lamps Plus, Inc. V. Varela: Dark Times Ahead For Class Arbitrations, Joanna Niworowski

University of Miami Law Review

The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) was enacted in 1925 to combat judicial hostility towards arbitration. Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this statute as evidencing a pro-arbitration policy and has upheld the use of arbitration clauses in a variety of contracts. Unfortunately, while the FAA was able to overcome the hostility towards arbitration, it was not able to stop the Court from finding a new target: class arbitrations.

This Comment analyzes the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela. In critiquing the Court’s continued erosion of the availability of class arbitrations, this Comment considers …