Arbitration is an important method of dispute resolution but it requires courts that can confirm or vacate arbitral awards. When parties move to confirm or vacate these awards, federal courts largely ignore the Article III case or controversy requirement’s role as a limit on their power. Applying this requirement is not as simple as it sounds, and courts have little guidance in doing so. This Article therefore provides a framework that resolves two problems. First, motions to confirm or vacate arbitral awards always involve an underlying dispute (the dispute that necessitated arbitration) and a dispute about whether to grant the motion. It is not clear which dispute needs to be a case or controversy. Second, if the motion itself must meet this test, it is unclear whether the injury supporting standing is to a federal right or based on the effect of the award. This Article resolves both problems and analyzes a recent Supreme Court case involving this issue.
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/aaron_franklin/1/