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
According to Justice Ginsburg, the Supreme Court is considering a preliminary question of whether the arbitration clause in the parties’ agreement permits class treatment.
According to Seth P. Waxman, on behalf of the Petitioners, the parties argue that the construction of the arbitration clause, under AAA Rule 3, determines whether class arbitration is allowed.
Background and question before the Court
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the arbitration clause expressly permitted class arbitration, framing the preliminary issue for the Court.
Justice Stevens further asked whether, assuming the contract expressly authorized class arbitration, that would be permissible.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Stolt‑Nielsen S.A.)
According to Seth P. Waxman, on behalf of the Petitioners, petitioner argues that arbitrators derive their authority solely from the consent of the parties to the agreement.
According to Seth P. Waxman, on behalf of the Petitioners, if the contract expressly authorized class participation, petitioner would have no argument that the parties had not agreed to it.
According to Seth P. Waxman, on behalf of the Petitioners, petitioner points to AAA Rule 3, which requires arbitrators to decide whether the arbitration clause permits class arbitration.
According to Petitioner (Mr. Waxman), according to Petitioner (Mr. Waxman), petitioner contends that the contract is not truly silent; there are arguments about its terms.
According to Waxman, petitioner notes that the contracts at issue are form contracts drafted by charterers and brokers, and they contain varied arbitration clauses.
According to MS. PILLARD, counsel Ms. Pillard suggests that if the parties wanted to avoid class arbitration they could have written around it.
- [1] 7e3a8cc7d1c8ea2bbc9d-r1-96a930e090c5582b.pdf, p. 3
- [2] 7e3a8cc7d1c8ea2bbc9d-r1-96a930e090c5582b.pdf, p. 11
- [3] 7e3a8cc7d1c8ea2bbc9d-r1-96a930e090c5582b.pdf, p. 14
- [4] 7e3a8cc7d1c8ea2bbc9d-r1-96a930e090c5582b.pdf, p. 21
- [5] 7e3a8cc7d1c8ea2bbc9d-r1-96a930e090c5582b.pdf, p. 60
- [6] 7e3a8cc7d1c8ea2bbc9d-r1-96a930e090c5582b.pdf, p. 43
Respondent (AnimalFeeds International Corp.)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Justice Ginsburg noted that many consumer contracts, such as typical credit‑card agreements, contain clauses prohibiting class actions.
According to Waxman, waxman observed that the contracts at issue are form contracts drafted by charterers and brokers, and they contain differing arbitration clauses.
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.
- 7e3a8cc7d1c8ea2bbc9d-r1-96a930e090c5582b.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.