As we speak the Supreme Courtroom determined Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, one more Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) case. The justices cut up 8-1 on the judgment, concluding that the FAA “preempts a rule of California regulation that invalidates contractual waivers of the precise to claim consultant claims beneath California’s Labor Code Non-public Attorneys Basic Act of 2004.”
Justice Alito wrote the opinion for the Courtroom, however there was some splintering on the rationale. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch joined Alito’s opinion in full. The Chief Justice and Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett joined it partially. Justice Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion, and Justice Barrett wrote an opinion concurring partially and concurring within the judgment. Justice Thomas dissented.
Justice Kavanaugh joined Justice Barrett’s separate opinion in full. the Chief Justice joined the opinion partially. In reality, he joined all of Justice Barrett’s opinion aside from a brief (seven phrase) footnote. What could possibly be in that footnote to which the Chief objected? Nicely, under is Justice Barrett’s one paragraph opinion and the offending footnote.
I be part of Half III of the Courtroom’s opinion. I agree that reversal is required beneath our precedent as a result of PAGA’s process is akin to different aggregation gadgets that can not be imposed on a celebration to an arbitration settlement. See, e.g., Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. Animal Feeds Int’l Corp., 559 U. S. 662 (2010); AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U. S. 333 (2011); Epic Programs Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U. S. ___ (2018); Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 587 U. S. ___ (2019). I’d say nothing greater than that. The dialogue in Components II and IV of the Courtroom’s opinion is pointless to the end result, and far of it addresses disputed state-law questions in addition to arguments not pressed or handed upon on this case.*
And the footnote:
*The identical is true of Half I.