As the centennial of the Federal Arbitration Act (the FAA), 9 U.S.C. §1, et seq. approaches, the efficacy of that statutory regime has never been stronger. Reinforced by a plenitude of Supreme Court decisions, some of them quite recent, this federal law assuring the enforceability of agreements to arbitrate remains indefatigable. Indeed, in these very pages only a year ago, we had occasion to expound upon the aptly named Epic Systems v. Lewis, 584 U.S. __ (2018), at the time the high court’s latest confirmation that arbitral accords shall be upheld by the federal courts. See Michael A. Sabino and Anthony M. Sabino, “‘Epic’ Decision by Supreme Court Orders Arbitration, Prohibits Class Action,” 259 N.Y.L.J. at p. 4, cl. 4 (June 6, 2018); see also New Prime v. Oliveira, 586 U.S. ___, ___ slip op. at 1 (No. 17-340) (Jan. 15, 2019) (Gorsuch, J.) (“The Federal Arbitration Act requires courts to enforce private arbitration agreements”).
To this sturdy line of precedence upholding the strong federal policy favoring arbitration, we now add Lamps Plus v. Varela, 587 U.S. ___ (No. 17-988) (April 24, 2019). To be sure, some view this newest ruling as no more than a rejection of class arbitration. But that is too narrow an interpretation. Viewed correctly, Lamps Plus is a robust exemplification of fidelity to the plain text of the FAA, adherence to the statutory mandate decreeing that agreements to arbitrate are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, and, finally, that agreements to arbitrate shall be enforced wherever there is unquestioned consent, not only to proceeding by arbitration, but equally cogent assent to the means by which the parties shall arbitrate their controversy.
