The Rise in Judicial Hostility to Arbitration: Revisiting <i>Hall Street Associates</i>

When the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Hall Street Associates, LLC v. Mattel, Inc., commentators expected the Court to resolve the split among the federal circuits regarding the validity and enforceability of 'opt-in' agreements. Since the late 1990s, these agreements had become a means through which contracting parties could obtain enhanced judicial supervision of arbitral awards by providing for judicial review of the merits of arbitrator rulings. While commentators got a resolution to the split, they received a great deal more than they had been promised. In effect, the Court concluded that the statutory framework for enforcement applied as a matter of law and, therefore, was solely controlling in all circumstances of enforcement.

The framework was not merely a regulatory alternative to provide rules for enforcement when the contract was silent. The statutory framework provided the governing law and could not be modified by contract.