A century ago, many courts declined to enforce arbitration agreements, concerned that arbitration as a non-judicial process could bypass essential judicial oversight and compromise justice. In response, Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in 1925, establishing arbitration as an alternative to litigation. However, Congress did not specify that agreements to arbitrate would be the exclusive means for resolving legal claims, nor that courts should relinquish their Article III duties in confirming and enforcing these agreements. Now, ninety-nine years later, judicial emphasis on enforcing arbitration agreements over ensuring just outcomes raises questions about whether this approach aligns with both the Constitution and the FAA.

The questions presented are:

1. Whether, under a proper application of the Constitution, the Court can relinquish its Article III duties by merely deferring to arbitrators when enforcing arbitration awards.

2. Whether, under a proper application of the FAA, the Court should enforce arbitration awards that manifestly disregard the law or violate public policy.

3. Whether the Court should clarify the extent of discretion that courts retain under Article III of the Constitution when reviewing arbitration awards.

Whether the Supreme Court can relinquish Article III duties by deferring to arbitrators when enforcing arbitration awards