June 26, 2022

Volume XII, Number 177

Advertisement
Advertisement

June 24, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 23, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Badgerow v. Walters: Supreme Court Holds that “look through” Approach Does not Apply to Requests to Confirm or Vacate Arbitral Awards Under the FAA

Text or purpose? Plain language or pragmatism? Though the text does not provide for it, should courts interpret Sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to provide a “look through” approach to federal jurisdiction over confirming or vacating an arbitral award?

No, according to Justice Kagan’s 8-1 opinion in Bagderow v. Walters, courts should not pull “out of thin air” “look-through” jurisdiction “without textual support.” So, even though the underlying arbitral award in Bagderow addressed federal employment law, the Fifth Circuit erred in holding that a federal court in Louisiana could exercise jurisdiction over dueling petitions to vacate or confirm that award. Neither Sections 9 nor 10 include language permitting a “look through” approach to a federal court’s jurisdiction.

The Bagderow decision builds on the Court’s 2009 decision in Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009); there, the Court held that a federal court should “look through” a petition to compel arbitration under Section 4 to the “underlying substantive controversy” between the parties. As the Court explained in Bagderow, the decision in Vaden rested on the particular language in Section 4 of the FAA (emphasis added):

"A party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration may petition any United States district court which, save for such agreement, would have jurisdiction . . . over the controversy between the parties."

This language, the Court in Vaden explained, “drives our conclusion that a federal court should determine its jurisdiction by ‘looking through’ a Section 4 petition to the underlying substantive controversy” to see, for example, if that dispute “’arises under’ federal law.”

In sharp contrast, neither Sections 9 nor 10 include Section 4’s “save for” clause. As the Court in Bagderow explained: “They do not instruct a court to imagine a world without an arbitration agreement, and to ask whether it would then have jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute.” Given this difference, the Court concluded it had “no warrant to redline the FAA, importing Section 4’s consequential language into provisions containing nothing like it.”

Offering a pragmatic view of the Court’s role, Justice Breyer’s lone dissent criticized the majority’s fidelity to the FAA’s text as “adopting an interpretation that . . . creates unnecessary complexity and confusion.” Justice Breyer would simply use a “look through” approach for all provisions of the FAA to avoid “anomalous results” and provide “simplicity.”

Justice Breyer’s most compelling argument about the “anomalous results” concerned a provision not at issue in the case—Section 5, the appointment provision. Justice Breyer hypothesized that a party might obtain “look through” jurisdiction to compel arbitration under Section 4 but then be denied jurisdiction to “appoint” an arbitrator under Section 5 based on the majority’s reasoning. In a footnote, the majority left the issue for another day: “Because Section 5 is not at issue here, we do not express any view about” it.

In regards to data privacy and cybersecurity litigations going forward, because the Court ruled that the federal law claims in the underlying dispute are not sufficient for a federal court to confirm or vacate an arbitration award, many post-arbitration disagreements will likely shift to state courts going forward. This development is anticipated in other areas of the law outside the data privacy context, in light of the Court’s broadly worded opinion.

© Copyright 2022 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLPNational Law Review, Volume XII, Number 116
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Brent Owen Energy Litigation Attorney Squire Patton Boggs Denver, CO
Senior Associate

Brent Owen represents energy, mining, construction, consumer services, and political clients in high-stakes litigation at trial and on appeal. Brent’s college experience as a full-scholarship Division I offensive lineman allows him to appreciate the value of consistent hard work in achieving a favorable result.

His experience includes all aspects of litigation, including trials in both state and federal courts before judges and juries and in arbitration tribunals, including the International Chamber of Commerce and the American Arbitration Association. A former law clerk to the...

303-894-6111
Kristin L. Bryan Litigation Attorney Squire Patton Boggs Cleveland, OH & New York, NY
Senior Associate

Kristin Bryan is a litigator experienced in the efficient resolution of contract, commercial and complex business disputes, including multidistrict litigation and putative class actions, in courts nationwide.

She has successfully represented Fortune 15 clients in high-stakes cases involving a wide range of subject matters.

As a natural extension of her experience litigating data privacy disputes, Kristin is also experienced in providing business-oriented privacy advice to a wide range of clients, with a particular focus on companies handling customers’ personal data. In this...

216-479-8070
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement