Supreme Court Hears Argument In Class Arbitration Case, Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter

Keywords: Arbitration, AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, class arbitration, Federal Arbitration Act, Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter, Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., Supreme Court,

The Supreme Court heard oral argument earlier today in Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, No. 12-135, on whether the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") allows an arbitrator to interpret an arbitration agreement that does not affirmatively authorize class arbitration to permit use of that procedure.

For some background on Oxford, please see our prior blog post. My takeaway from the argument (transcript here) is that two competing principles under the FAA were in play. On the one hand, class arbitration is highly disfavored: The Supreme Court has previously explained—both in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. and AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion—that class arbitration is not the type of arbitration envisioned by the FAA because, like jury trials and full-blown