Civil Procedure – arbitration — class actions

Listen to this article

U.S. Supreme Court

Civil

Civil Procedure – arbitration — class actions

An arbitrator acted within his authority in deciding whether a contract permitted class actions.

A party seeking relief under §10(a)(4) bears a heavy burden. “It is not enough . . . to show that the [arbitrator] committed an error—or even a serious error.” Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U. S., at 671. Because the parties “bargained for the arbitrator’s construction of their agreement,” an arbitral decision “even arguably construing or applying the contract” must stand, regardless of a court’s view of its (de)merits. Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers, 531 U. S. 57. Thus, the sole question on judicial review is whether the arbitrator interpreted the parties’ contract, not whether he construed it correctly. Here, the arbitrator twice did what the parties asked: He considered their contract and decided whether it reflected an agreement to permit class proceedings. That suffices to show that he did not exceed his powers under §10(a)(4).

675 F. 3d 215, affirmed.

12-135 Oxford Health Plans, LLC, v. Sutter

Kagan, J.; Alito, J., concurring.