This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I seem to remember a recent controversy regarding binding arbitration recently. If anyone has more information, I believe it'd be helpful to the article. (especially considering it's bordering on being a stub.) 24.94.182.11 (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The core controversy relating to the FAA is more that its modern interpretation turns on the assumption that "interstate commerce" (as a class of contracts subject to the FAA) and "interstate commerce" (as a class of employment contracts NOT subject to the FAA) are fundamentally different. An assumption which is based on SCOTUS's subsequent broadening of the scope of the Commerce Clause (from covering only the movement of goods across state lines to anything more generally affecting interstate commerce), and SCOTUS's choice to apply that broadening to the former class but not the latter. (In Circuit City v Adams.) Often presented as a paradigmatic example of SCOTUS substituting its own policy preferences for those of Congress.
