This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Oral argument before the Supreme Court took place at 11:02 a.m.
According to Petitioners (Karen Howsam et al.), petitioners argue that Dean Witter is attempting to place a hurdle in the way of the public investor who seeks to enforce an arbitration agreement.
According to Respondent (Dean Witter Reynolds), respondents argue that a “not to be submitted” clause and a six‑year limitation limit the scope of the arbitration agreement.
Justice Souter asked whether parties can agree to a temporal restriction while leaving the decision of its truth to someone else.
Background and question before the Court
Oral argument before the Supreme Court took place at 11:02 a.m.
Justice Scalia asked whether the arbitrator is empowered to determine the applicability of the issue referenced in 10324.
Justice Ginsburg asked what general principle controls the first conclusion.
Justice Souter asked whether parties can agree to a temporal restriction while leaving the decision of its truth to someone else.
According to Justice (unspecified), an unspecified Justice asked whether the NASD code of procedure, which the petitioner agreed to be bound by, incorporates the relevant provision.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Karen Howsam et al.)
According to Petitioners (Karen Howsam et al.), petitioners argue that Dean Witter is attempting to place a hurdle in the way of the public investor who seeks to enforce an arbitration agreement.
Respondent (Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.)
According to Respondent (Dean Witter Reynolds), respondents argue that a “not to be submitted” clause and a six‑year limitation limit the scope of the arbitration agreement.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument before the Supreme Court took place at 11:02 a.m.
During oral argument the Court asked several questions about the arbitration agreement, including its temporal restrictions and the authority of arbitrators.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Petitioners (Karen Howsam et al.), the case concerns whether public investors can be forced into industry‑run arbitration, affecting their access to courts.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 18d5c7674e517598c384-r1-f89204d3508f9be4.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.