Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Badgerow v. Walters

Badgerow v. Walters

Supreme Court of the United States

November 2, 2021, Argued; March 31, 2022, Decided

No. 20-1143.

Opinion

Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court.

] The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. §1 et seq., authorizes a party to an arbitration agreement to seek several kinds of assistance from a federal court. Under Section 4, for example, a party may ask the court to compel an arbitration proceeding, as the agreement contemplates. And under Sections 9 and 10, a party may apply to the court to confirm, or alternatively to vacate, an arbitral award.

Yet the federal courts, as we have often held, may or may not have jurisdiction to decide such a request. The Act’s authorization of a petition does not itself create jurisdiction. [*7]  Rather, the federal court must have what we have called an “independent jurisdictional basis” to resolve the matter. Hall Street Associates, L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U. S. 576, 582, 128 S. Ct. 1396, 170 L. Ed. 2d 254 (2008).

In Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U. S. 49, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 173 L. Ed. 2d 206 (2009), we assessed whether there was a jurisdictional basis to decide a Section 4 petition to compel arbitration by means of examining the parties’ underlying dispute. ] The text of Section 4, we reasoned, instructs a federal court to “look through” the petition to the “underlying substantive controversy” between the parties—even though that controversy is not before the court. Id., at 62, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 173 L. Ed. 2d 206. If the underlying dispute falls within the court’s jurisdiction—for example, by presenting a federal question—then the court may rule on the petition to compel. That is so regardless whether the petition alone could establish the court’s jurisdiction.

The question presented here is whether that same “look-through” approach to jurisdiction applies to requests to confirm or vacate arbitral awards under the FAA’s Sections 9 and 10. We hold it does not. Those sections lack Section 4’s distinctive language directing a look-through, on which Vaden rested. Without that statutory instruction, a court may look only to the application actually submitted to it in assessing its jurisdiction.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2022 U.S. LEXIS 1794 *; __ S.Ct. __; 2022 WL 959675

DENISE A. BADGEROW, PETITIONER v. GREG WALTERS, ET AL.

Notice: The pagination of this document is subject to change pending release of the final published version.

Prior History:  [*1] ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Badgerow v. Walters, 975 F.3d 469, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 29339 (5th Cir. La., Sept. 15, 2020)

Disposition: 975 F. 3d 469, reversed and remanded.

CORE TERMS

arbitration, look-through, federal court, parties, district court, arbitration agreement, vacate, sections, jurisdictional rule, confirm, diversity, state court, courts, motions, summoned, appoint, save, attendance, modify, arbitration award, directing, words, federal jurisdiction, compel arbitration, federal question, federal judge, witnesses, purposes, venue, arbitration proceedings

Business & Corporate Compliance, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Arbitration, Federal Arbitration Act, Pretrial Matters, Judicial Review, Federal Arbitration Act, Orders to Compel Arbitration, Civil Procedure, Preliminary Considerations, Jurisdiction, Diversity Jurisdiction, Jurisdictional Sources, Statutory Sources, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction Over Actions, Limited Jurisdiction, Federal Questions, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitrability, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation, Courts, Authority to Adjudicate