October Term 2012 · Docket 12-135
Can a court void an arbitration award for factual error?
Oxford Health Plans seeks to overturn an arbitrator's award. Sutter argues the award stands despite factual disputes.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Katz stated that only two ways exist to vacate an award under the applicable standard.
Mr. Waxman cited Stolt-Nielsen to argue that arbitration requires a clear contractual basis.
Justice Ginsburg noted that arbitrators interpret contract terms and courts rarely overturn them.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 31-11 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 31-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-9
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests the limits of judicial review over arbitration awards. Oxford Health Plans argues the arbitrator distorted facts. Sutter argues courts must defer to arbitrators on factual matters.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 31-11 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 31-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-1
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 25, 2013.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
What each side wants
Oxford Health Plans wants the Court to allow courts to vacate awards based on factual errors.
Sutter wants the Court to bar courts from reviewing arbitrators' factual findings.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 31-11 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 31-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-1
What each side says
Oxford Health Plans argues that severe factual distortion transforms a fact issue into a legal one.
Sutter argues that arbitrators decide facts and courts cannot second-guess those decisions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 31-11 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 31-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-1
What the justices asked
Justice Scalia asked if factual distortion becomes a legal question at some point.
Justice Sotomayor asked if this is always an arbitrator's question or a mistake here.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-9
Why it matters
This case defines the boundary between judicial review and arbitration finality. It determines whether courts can correct factual errors in private dispute resolution. The outcome shapes the reliability of arbitration as a legal mechanism.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 31-11 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 31-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-1
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-9
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 31-11 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 31-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 31-11 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 31-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-1
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.