Since its promulgation nearly a century ago, the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §1, et seq. (the FAA), has embodied the strong federal policy favoring arbitration. See Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, 596 U.S. ___ (No. 20-1573) (June 15, 2022). The statutory regime’s prime directive is succinct and inarguable: agreements to arbitrate “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable.” 9 U.S.C. §2 (emphasis supplied). And a wealth of recent U.S. Supreme Court pronouncements have sustained that inexorable command. See, i.e., Henry Schein v. Archer & White Sales, 586 U.S. ___ (2019).

Yet even the FAA has an exception; explicitly exempt from its purview are “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” 9 U.S.C. §1 (emphasis supplied). And the meaning of that proviso’s closing words has been fraught with controversy.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]