1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Supreme Court Gives Businesses a Win in Mandatory Arbitration Dispute

Supreme Court Gives Businesses a Win in Mandatory Arbitration Dispute

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.25.19

On April 24, 2019, the Supreme Court issued its widely-anticipated decision in Lamps Plus v. Varela. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court held that a mandatory arbitration dispute resolution provision in a form contract cannot be read to permit class or collective arbitration unless the agreement explicitly provides for such procedure. The Court reversed a decision by the Ninth Circuit that had reasoned that an ambiguous arbitration agreement should be construed to implicitly permit a party to a form contract to seek class arbitration.

The decision is an important victory for the business community, which increasingly favors using agreements that channel disputes to individual arbitration. The logic of the Court’s ruling applies to many types of form contracts, including agreements with employees, independent contractors, consumers, and vendors. The opinion reinforces last year’s decision in Epic Systems v. Lewis, in which a 5-4 majority of the Court held that mandatory arbitration agreements can be enforced with respect to claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, rejecting arguments that this outcome violates Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. These two decisions continue the trend of narrow Court majorities siding with businesses seeking to expand the use of mandatory arbitration as a preferred form of dispute resolution. 

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights