The Continuing Voice of Dissent: Justice Thomas and the Federal Arbitration Act

Brian Farkas
{"title":"The Continuing Voice of Dissent: Justice Thomas and the Federal Arbitration Act","authors":"Brian Farkas","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3006415","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since 1984, a majority of the Supreme Court has held that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts conflicting state arbitration laws, and that the FAA must be applied in state courts. Consequently, federal courts have invalidated many states’ attempts to regulate arbitration. This reality has shaped American arbitration law for over three decades. Justice Clarence Thomas has vigorously fought against this approach to arbitration policy since he joined the Supreme Court. Indeed, he has been among the most vocal and consistent opponents of the application of the FAA in state court proceedings. Yet his voice has always been in dissent, most recently in the December 2015 decision in DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia. This Article represents the most comprehensive examination to date of Justice Thomas’ views on both the FAA and arbitration more broadly. Beginning with a background on the FAA’s history and the Supreme Court’s arbitration jurisprudence, it explores his unique judicial philosophy and its intersection with arbitration policy. In an area of procedural law that evades facile labels of ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative,’ Justice Thomas shows the ways in which a conservative preference for states’ rights can actually lead to liberal procedural and substantive outcomes.","PeriodicalId":405630,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Contract Litigation","volume":"88 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Contract Litigation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3006415","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Since 1984, a majority of the Supreme Court has held that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts conflicting state arbitration laws, and that the FAA must be applied in state courts. Consequently, federal courts have invalidated many states’ attempts to regulate arbitration. This reality has shaped American arbitration law for over three decades. Justice Clarence Thomas has vigorously fought against this approach to arbitration policy since he joined the Supreme Court. Indeed, he has been among the most vocal and consistent opponents of the application of the FAA in state court proceedings. Yet his voice has always been in dissent, most recently in the December 2015 decision in DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia. This Article represents the most comprehensive examination to date of Justice Thomas’ views on both the FAA and arbitration more broadly. Beginning with a background on the FAA’s history and the Supreme Court’s arbitration jurisprudence, it explores his unique judicial philosophy and its intersection with arbitration policy. In an area of procedural law that evades facile labels of ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative,’ Justice Thomas shows the ways in which a conservative preference for states’ rights can actually lead to liberal procedural and substantive outcomes.
持续的异议之声:托马斯法官与联邦仲裁法
自1984年以来,最高法院的多数人认为,联邦仲裁法(FAA)优先于相互冲突的州仲裁法,FAA必须适用于州法院。因此,联邦法院使许多州试图规范仲裁的努力无效。这一现实影响了美国仲裁法30多年。克拉伦斯·托马斯大法官自加入最高法院以来,一直在大力反对这种仲裁政策。事实上,他一直是反对联邦航空局在州法院诉讼中应用的最直言不讳和一贯的反对者之一。然而,他的声音总是持不同意见,最近一次是在2015年12月DIRECTV, Inc.诉Imburgia案的判决中。这篇文章代表了托马斯法官对联邦航空局和更广泛的仲裁的观点迄今为止最全面的审查。从美国联邦航空局的历史和最高法院的仲裁法理学背景开始,它探讨了他独特的司法哲学及其与仲裁政策的交集。在一个回避“自由主义”和“保守主义”标签的程序法领域,托马斯大法官展示了保守主义对国家权利的偏好实际上可以导致自由主义的程序和实质性结果的方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信