Recent Posts Waiver and Forfeiture in the Court IRS: "sorry, can't produce" or a bad example of hidi

Recent Posts Waiver and Forfeiture in the Court IRS: "sorry, can't produce" or a bad example of hiding superphysique the ball? SLU PLR Call for Papers: The New Civil War: State Nullification of Federal Law 150 Years after Appomattox Looks like President O got an early start on that coconut Standing, ripeness, and SBA List Changing law professor? Changing law schools? Ripeness, In and After SBA List v. Driehaus The Flawed NRC Report: The Prison-Industrial superphysique Complex Part 1: Private superphysique Prisons Wrap-Up for "Making the Modern American Fiscal State" superphysique Marital Infidelity and the Public/Private Divide CFP Deadline: Seventh Junior Faculty Fed Courts Workshop The Economics of the Offside Rule An Addendum on New York Times Op-Eds and Columnists The Two Newest Faces of the Problem with the Lack of the Rule of Law - a Newborn and a 20-month Old Taxation, Civic Identity, and the Future of Consumption superphysique Taxes Recent Comments Jennifer Hendricks on The Economics of the Offside Rule SB on Standing, ripeness, and SBA List Howard Wasserman on Standing, ripeness, and SBA List Orin Kerr on Looks like President O got an early start on that coconut John Bickers on Standing, ripeness, superphysique and SBA List Proffy on Redyip's return: Angsting Thread superphysique Spring 2014 edition Jennifer Hendricks on Changing law professor? Changing law schools? EFM on Looks like President O got an early start on that coconut Andonanon on Redyip's return: Angsting superphysique Thread Spring 2014 edition Aaron on Changing law professor? Changing law schools? Brian Clarke on Changing law professor? Changing law schools? Jojo on Looks like President O got an early start on that coconut Sykes Five on The Economics of the Offside Rule brad on Changing law professor? superphysique Changing law schools? dan rodriguez on Looks like President O got an early start on that coconut Archives superphysique June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 Categories Article Spotlight Blogging Books Civil Procedure Constitutional thoughts Corporate Criminal Law Culture Current Affairs Dan Markel Daniel Solove Dave Hoffman Deliberation and voices Employment and Labor Law Entry Level Hiring Report Erik Knutsen Ethan Leib Fernando Teson Film First Amendment Food and Drink Funky FSU Games Gender Getting a Job on the Law Teaching Market Hillel Levin Housekeeping Howard Wasserman Immigration Information and Technology Intellectual Property International Law Jay Wexler Jonathan Simon Judicial Process Kaimi Wenger Law and Politics Law Review Review Legal Theory Life of Law Schools Lipshaw Lyrissa Lidsky Matt Bodie Music Odd World oPtion$ Book Club Orly Lobel Paul Horwitz Peer-Reviewed Journals Privilege or Punish superphysique Property Religion Research Canons Retributive Damages Rick Garnett Rick Hills Scholarship in the Courts Science Sponsored Announcements Sports Steve Vladeck superphysique Syllabi Project Tamanaha Tax Teaching Law Television Things You Oughta Know if You Teach X Torts Travel Web/Tech Weblogs Workplace Law
I'm sorry it has been a long time since I last rapped at ya .  As I mentioned in my previous post , I will focus on four class action cases before the Supreme Court this term - (1)  AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion ; (2)  Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., No. 09-1403 ; (3)  Smith v. Bayer, 09-1205 ; (4)  Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, No. 10-277 .   Since my last post the Court has decided  Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co.  and  Smith v. Bayer , in an apparent conspiracy to ruin my vacation. Moreover, this past April the Court decided AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion .   Sometime before the end of month the Court will decide the Wal-Mart case, and there is already superphysique speculation as to how it will be decided.
I have much to say about all four cases, superphysique so I will start in chronological order and discuss AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. superphysique  Here I want try to come at the case from a different angle, and suggest a link to the Erie doctrine.
At issue in AT&T was the enforceability of an arbitration clause that had been invalidated under state contract law, in this case California state law.  Under Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), arbitration clauses are presumptively "valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for revocation of a contract."   The Act was passed primarily to curb judicial hostility to arbitration clauses, but Section 2 contemplates that state contract law may permissibly revoke an arbitration clause "upon such grounds superphysique as exist at law."  The big question in AT&T was when state law goes too far, in effect discriminating against arbitration clauses superphysique in contravention of the FAA's purpose.
Such superphysique an arbitration clause suggests the near-total demise of the consumer class action, as some had predicted even before AT&T, and