Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc. (2007)
- Docket
- 06-989
- Decided
- 2007-01-01
Summary
Question: Can a federal court enforce an arbitration agreement that provides for more expansive judicial review of an arbitration award than the narrow standard of review provided for in the Federal Arbitration Act? Conclusion: In a 6-3 opinion, the Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit ruling and held that the provisions of the FAA are exclusive and cannot be expanded through contractual agreement. Writing for the majority, Justice David Souter pointed to words such as "must" and "unless" in the FAA as evidence that its provisions were intended to be mandatory and incapable of modification by the parties. Therefore, the Court upheld the arbitrator's award in favor of Mattel. Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, filed a dissenting opinion arguing that the FAA's central purpose-ensuring the enforcement of arbitration agreements-made judicial review necessary in this case. Justice Stephen Breyer also filed a separate dissent.