The Expert's Examiner


The Supreme Court just concluded a very busy Term
July 7, 2022

Morgan v. Sundance Inc., No. 21-328 (May 23, 2022); Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, No. 21-309; (Jun. 6, 2022); ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd., No. 21-401 (Jun. 13, 2022); Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, No. 20-1573 (Jun. 15, 2022)

The Supreme Court just concluded a very busy Term that included an unprecedented five arbitration-centric decisions (all of which we have covered in detail). See Friedman, George, After a Lull in 2021, a Busy Year Ahead Arbitration-wise for SCOTUS, 2021:48 Sec. Arb. Alert 1 (Dec. 23, 2021). Four of these decisions were released in a fairly compact time period in late May to mid-June 2022. See Friedman, George, The SCOTUS “Arbitration Quartet” – What You Need to Know, 2022:26 Sec. Arb. Alert 1 (Jul. 7, 2022).

The SCOTUS “Arbitration Quartet” – What You Need to Know
As our readers know, the Supreme Court just concluded a very busy Term that included an unprecedented five arbitration-centric decisions (all of which we have covered in detail). See Friedman, George, After a Lull in 2021, a Busy Year Ahead Arbitration-wise for SCOTUS, 2021:48 Sec. Arb. Alert 1 (Dec. 23, 2021). Four of these decisions were released in a fairly compact time period in late May to mid-June 2022 (the fifth case was Badgerow v. Walters, No. 20-1143 (Mar. 31, 2022), where the Court ruled 8-1 that the “look through” doctrine does not apply to actions to confirm or vacate an arbitration award under sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), even though it does for motions to compel arbitration under section 4. See Friedman, George, The SCOTUS “Arbitration Quartet” – What You Need to Know, 2022:26 Sec. Arb. Alert 1 (Jul. 7, 2022).

Specifically, the Supreme Court: 1) on May 23 decided Morgan v. Sundance Inc., No. 21-328; 2) on June 6 decided Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, No. 21-309; 3) on June 13 decided ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd., No. 21-401; and 4) on June 15 decided Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, No. 20-1573. SCOTUS was evidently setting up another “Steelworkers Trilogy” scenario, similar to when the Court six decades ago simultaneously decided three landmark arbitration cases involving the United Steelworkers. The three cases, United Steelworkers v. American Manufacturing Co., 363 U.S. 564 (1960); United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (1960); and United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (1960), were all heard the same week (April 27-28, 1960), and the decisions were all announced seriatim on the same day (June 20, 1960). Here are the key things readers need to know about these four decisions we’ve termed the “Arbitration Quartet.”

Conclusion
The last time SCOTUS agreed to hear several cases involving arbitration was the 2018-19 Term, when the Court accepted for review: Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., No. 17-1272; Lamps Plus v. Varela, No. 17-988; and New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira, No. 17-340. The four nearly unanimous rulings in the Quartet, by which the Court addressed several long-standing splits on the issues, were a nice break from the usual 5-4 or 6-3 decisions split along ideological lines.  There are a bunch of Certiorari Petitions still pending that involve arbitration-related issues. Time will tell if another Quartet is in the offing.

(ed: While none of these cases involved financial services arbitration, they are sure to impact the process. The Badgerow case, however, involved attempted confirmation of a FINRA award. See our March 31 blog post.)