Partisan Divide in SCT Arbitration Cases

The partisan divide in Supreme Court arbitration cases continued this spring with Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela, No. 17-988 (April 24), in which the 5 justices appointed by Republican presidents comprised the majority and the 4 justices appointed by Democratic presidents dissented. When the SCT agreed to take the case last year, I wrote "The US Chamber of Commerce wants the Ninth Circuit reversed...  Public Citizen predictably opposes the Chamber on this case."

The Ninth Circuit had affirmed interpreting the arbitration agreement to authorize class arbitration, by distinguishing Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 55 U.S. 662 (2010), which held that an agreement's silence on class arbitration was not enough to authorize it. In Lamps Plus, the Ninth Circuit found agreement to class arbitration in contract language stating that “arbitration shall be in lieu of any and all lawsuits or other civil legal proceedings” and a description of the substantive claims subject to arbitration.

But Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion ruled this contract language merely ambiguous and thus  “cannot provide the necessary contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to submit to class arbitration.”

Justice Ginsburg's dissent said “mandatory individual arbitration continues to thwart ‘effective access to justice’ for those encountering diverse violations of their legal rights.”

Interestingly, Justice Thomas, who ordinarily opposes FAA preemption of state law, wrote a separate concurrence nevertheless joining his fellow conservatives in finding such preemption here.

Lots of good commentary on the case linked by Edith Roberts at SCOTUSblog