Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
12-135	3d Cir.	Mar 25, 2013 Tr.Aud.	Jun 10, 2013	9-0	Kagan	OT 2012

Holding: When an arbitrator determines that the parties to an arbitration intended to authorize class-wide arbitration, that determination survives judicial review under § 10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act as long as the arbitrator was arguably construing the contract.

Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on June 10, 2013. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Thomas joined.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Opinion analysis: Tentatively reopening the (back) door to class arbitration (Steve Vladeck)
Details: Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter (Tom Goldstein)
Argument recap: How much deference do arbitrators deserve under Stolt-Nielsen? (Steve Vladeck)
Petition of the day (Ben Cheng)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Jul 27 2012	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 30, 2012)
Aug 1 2012	Waiver of right of respondent John Ivan Sutter to respond filed.
Aug 15 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.
Aug 21 2012	Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America.
Aug 29 2012	Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar.
Sep 6 2012	Response Requested . (Due October 9, 2012)
Oct 1 2012	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 8, 2012.
Nov 6 2012	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including November 15, 2012.
Nov 15 2012	Brief of respondent John Ivan Sutter in opposition filed.
Nov 20 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 7, 2012.
Nov 20 2012	Reply of petitioner Oxford Health Plans LLC filed. (Distributed)
Dec 7 2012	Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America GRANTED.
Dec 7 2012	Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar GRANTED.
Dec 7 2012	Petition GRANTED.
Jan 7 2013	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, March 25, 2013
Jan 8 2013	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.
Jan 9 2013	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.
Jan 22 2013	Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs received.)
Jan 22 2013	Brief of petitioner Oxford Health Plans LLC filed.
Jan 22 2013	Record received from U.S.C.A. for 3rd Circuit is electronic.
Jan 22 2013	Record from U.S.D.C. for the District of New Jersey is electronic.
Jan 23 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation filed.
Jan 28 2013	CIRCULATED.
Jan 28 2013	Brief amicus curiae of New England Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013	Brief amicus curiae of DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013	Brief amicus curiae of The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Equal Employment Advisory Council filed. (Distributed)
Feb 21 2013	Brief of respondent John Ivan Sutter filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013	Brief amici curiae of American Medical Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 18 2013	Reply of petitioner Oxford Health Plans LLC filed. (Distributed)
Mar 25 2013	Argued. For petitioner: Seth P. Waxman, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Eric D. Katz, Roseland, N. J.
Jun 10 2013	Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Alito, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined.
Jul 12 2013	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Featured Posts

Challengers urge justices to dismiss census case after district court ruling (Updated) – Amy Howe

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released orders from the January 18 conference on Tuesday; the justices granted New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York.
On Tuesday, the justices released their opinion in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
The justices will meet next for their February 15 conference.
The calendar for the February sitting, which will begin on Tuesday, February 19, is available on the Supreme Court's website.
Recent Decisions
- Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. The sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential may place the invention “on sale” for purposes of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which bars a person from receiving a patent on an invention that was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,” 35 U. S. C. §102(a)(1).
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
More Petitions »
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 43

Cases decided 9

Summary reversals 2

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Jan. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
		1 Holiday	2	3	4 Conference	5
6	7 Orders MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. V. ALBRECHT (17-290) OBDUSKEY V. MCCARTHY & HOLTHUS LLP (17-1307)	8 HERRERA V. WYOMING (17-532) FOURTH ESTATE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORP. V. WALL-STREET.COM, LLC (17-571) Opinions	9 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA V. HYATT (17-1299)	10	11 Conference	12
13	14 Orders THACKER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (17-1201) RIMINI STREET INC. V. ORACLE USA INC. (17-1625)	15 HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC. V. JACKSON (17-1471) AZAR V. ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES (17-1484) Opinions	16 KNICK V. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT, PENNSYLVANIA (17-647) TENNESSEE WINE AND SPIRITS RETAILERS ASSOCIATION V. BLAIR (18-96)	17	18 Conference	19
20	21 Holiday	22 Orders Opinions	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor at Harvard

On November 13, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and Judge Susan Carney of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit presided over the final round of the 2018 Ames Moot Court Competition at Harvard Law School.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	43
Cases decided	9
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73

Breaking News :

Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Challengers urge justices to dismiss census case after district court ruling (Updated) – Amy Howe

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of January 18, 2019

Major Cases

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Jan. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award