Alternative Dispute Resolution,
Civil Litigation,
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan. 30, 2019
Statutory originalism has firmly arrived
Two recent Supreme Court rulings on arbitration speak with one voice to announce a clear shift in the way the high court is going to interpret federal law in the future.
Steven B. Katz
Partner
Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP
1800 Century Park E Fl 6
Los Angeles , CA 90067
Phone: (310) 597-4553
Email: skatz@constangy.com
USC Law School
Steven B. Katz is a partner and co-chair of the Appellate Practice Group at Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP. He represents employers in class, collective and representative actions, and appeals.
OT18
The U.S. Supreme Court has made two important arbitration rulings this month, handing down a split decision in terms of arbitration politics: one win for proponents of arbitration, one win for opponents. I don't see these decisions as "split" in any meaningful sense. They speak with one voice to announce a clear shift in the way the high court is going to interpret federal law in the future: "Statutory originalism...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In