Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 12 MARCH 2009

Supreme Court Docket Report - Decision Alert - March 9, 2008

Mayer Brown
Mayer Brown
Contributor
Mayer Brown

Mayer Brown

Mayer Brown is a leading international law firm positioned to represent the world’s major...

View firm profile
Explore more from Mayer Brown

Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 4, authorizes a district court to rule on a petition to compel arbitration if, “save for [the arbitration] agreement” at issue, the court would have jurisdiction of “a suit arising out of the controversy between the parties.”

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Originally published March 9, 2009

Keywords: Vaden v. Discover Bank, credit card debt, finance charges, credit laws, FAA, Federal Deposit Insurance Act

Today the Supreme Court issued a decision, described below, of interest to the business community.

Vaden v. Discover Bank, No. 07-773 (previously discussed in March 17, 2008 Docket Report).

Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. § 4, authorizes a district court to rule on a petition to compel arbitration if, "save for [the arbitration] agreement" at issue, the court would have jurisdiction of "a suit arising out of the controversy between the parties." Today, in Vaden v. Discover Bank, No. 07-773, the Supreme Court held that § 4 confers jurisdiction if the underlying, substantive "controversy between the parties" arises under federal law, rejecting the contention that "the parties' discrete dispute over the arbitrability of their claims" must itself provide a jurisdictional basis for the

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from