Academic highlight: Resnik on mandatory arbitration

In her contribution to the Yale Law Journal’s symposium on arbitration, Judith Resnik analyzes the last thirty years of the Supreme Court’s cases interpreting the Federal Arbitration Act and reaches a surprising conclusion:  Although these decisions have encouraged the “mass production of arbitration clauses” requiring hundreds of millions of consumers and employees to use arbitration to resolve disputes, these groups almost never do so.  In other words, Resnik finds that the practical effect of the Court’s arbitration jurisprudence has been to replace a system of public judicial dispute resolution with no dispute resolution at all.

Resnik’s article begins with a discussion of the Court’s recent decisions construing the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).  The Court has steadily expanded the scope of arbitration, holding that the FAA permits arbitration clauses that bar access to courts for breach of federal securities laws, for employees’

Original SCOTUS article

The mystery of Fisher II review

The volatile constitutional issue of race as a factor in selecting the entering classes at public universities and colleges returns to the Supreme Court next Term, but it is far from clear at this point just why the Justices are stepping back into that enduring controversy, and where it will end up.  The Court has a wide range of options on how to decide a new case involving the University of Texas, and lawyers — perhaps necessarily doing some guesswork — may find it quite challenging to shape their written arguments to cover that range.
The Court, of course, never explains fully at the outset why it is taking on a case, although it sometimes rewrites the legal questions either to suit its own preference or to narrow the scope of what it plans to decide.  But, if it

Original SCOTUS article