Corporate Accountability

Today in the Senate—Arbitration and the Roberts Court: Closing the Courthouse Doors to Americans

Today at 2:30pm ET, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing entitled “The Federal Arbitration Act and Access to Justice: Will Recent Supreme Court Decisions Undermine the Rights of Consumers, Workers, and Small Businesses?” 

This hearing is designed to highlight a series of rulings by the Supreme Court that have unduly extended the reach of the Federal Arbitration Act.  Because of these rulings, mandatory binding arbitration provisions pop up, or more often lie hidden in fine print, in just about every conceivable agreement that Americans are obliged to sign, whether to take a job, obtain telephone service, enroll a parent in an assisted living facility, visit a hospital emergency room, purchase a product, or open a bank account; the list goes on and on.

To aid the Committee in its deliberations, Constitutional Accountability Center submitted written testimony offering our thoughts on these recent rulings and placing them within the larger context of the Court’s business docket.  Drawing upon our empirical studies tracking the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s success before the Supreme Court, we highlighted the Chamber’s important role in shaping the Court’s recent business decisions, including those addressing arbitration.

The Chamber has filed amicus briefs in every major arbitration case decided by the Roberts Court, and has been on the winning side in the vast majority of them – including American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant, decided last Term.  The losing party in that case, Alan Carlson (the restaurant’s owner, a small businessman), will be a witness at today’s hearing.  All told, since Justice Samuel Alito joined the Supreme Court, the Chamber has compiled a record of 8 wins and 2 losses in cases addressing arbitration – an 80% winning percentage.  

The Committee and Senator Franken deserve praise for drawing attention to this important issue.  We’ll be watching with interest.

 

RESOURCES:

Webcast: Today’s hearing will be webcast live at 2:30 PM ET.

CAC’s Written Testimony to Senator Franken in Advance of the Committee’s Arbitration Hearing

CAC’s Most Recent Chamber Report: A Big Term for Big Business (June 25, 2013)

CAC Commentary on American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant

 

More from Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability
September 9, 2025

ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS—Fifth Circuit rejects petition challenging OCC authority to enforce national banking rules

Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw
The court distinguished the national banking regulatory regime from the SEC’s antifraud provision in Jarkesy and the...
Corporate Accountability
July 11, 2025

This Group’s Record in Front of the Roberts Court Is Mind-Boggling

Slate
In a provocative dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recently called out her colleagues on the Supreme Court...
By: Ana Builes, Brian R. Frazelle
Corporate Accountability
July 2, 2025

Moneyed Interests Still Prevail at the Supreme Court (2024-2025 Term)

The Court Continues to Favor Corporations over Workers, Consumers, and the Environment.
By: Brian R. Frazelle, Ana Builes
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Novartis v. Secretary United States Department of Health and Human Services

In Novartis v. Secretary United States Department of Health and Human Services, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit considered whether the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program is an unconstitutional...
Corporate Accountability
January 28, 2025

Federal Deposit Insurance as Jarkesy Waiver

Yale Journal on Regulation
An argument lurking just beneath the surface in a pending Fifth Circuit case could stem...
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Boehringer Ingelheim v. Department of Health and Human Services

In Boehringer Ingelheim v. Department of Health and Human Services, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered whether the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program is an unconstitutional taking...