Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in a pair of cases that question the role of the U.S. court system in holding companies accountable for profiting from child slavery in foreign countries. The Alien Tort Statute (ATS) gives federal courts jurisdiction to hear lawsuits filed by non-U.S. citizens for some violations of international law. In two related cases, the Supreme Court will decide whether U.S. corporations--as opposed to individuals--may be liable under the statute, and whether the allegations of corporate wrongdoing in these cases were sufficiently connected to the U.S.
In the recent decision of Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that even a "grave error" of an arbitrator is not enough to vacate an award in most cases. Oxford Health Plans had gone to federal court seeking to vacate an arbitrator's decision that John Sutter, MD, could bring a class action on behalf of himself and other New Jersey physicians alleging that Oxford failed to make full and prompt payment for services provided to members of Oxford's network.
In a harshly worded per curiam decision, the U.S. Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the broad reach of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") and restated that the FAA "reflects an emphatic federal policy in favor of arbitral dispute resolution." The FAA is the federal statute that regulates the relationship between the judicial process and arbitration.
On the last week of the current term, the Supreme Court announced its decision in the watershed case of Arizona v. United States, granting the Obama administration a partial victory over the state of Arizona and its efforts to expand the enforcement of undocumented immigration.