On 31 March 2022, the United States Supreme Court in Badgerow v. Walters limited federal subject matter jurisdiction over post-arbitration award petitions under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) §§ 9 and 10. After years of widening disagreement between circuit courts regarding when a federal court may exercise jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an award, the Supreme Court weighed in and held that federal courts may only exercise jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an award if the face of the application supports diversity or federal-question jurisdiction. One of the implications of this ruling is that many more post-arbitration proceedings to confirm or vacate an arbitration award may be channeled into state courts.
Section 4 states that a party seeking to compel arbitration can file suit in any court that, “save for” the arbitration agreement, would have federal jurisdiction over the underlying dispute.1
Section 9 provides that parties may apply to confirm an arbitration award in the United States court “in and for the district” where the award was made.2
Section 10 provides that parties may apply to vacate an arbitration award in the United States court “in and for the district” where the award was made.3
In its 2009 decision in Vaden v. Discover Bank, the Supreme Court found that federal-question jurisdiction could exist under a “look-through” approach in a § 4 petition to compel arbitration.4 In that case, two questions were...
Elizabeth Holmes spent some of her last days out of prison with a film crew. She was trying, it seems, to clear her name. "You really feel you did nothing wrong?" Nathan Fielder, who co-directed th...