October Term 2021 · Docket 20-1573

Can employers force employees to arbitrate state labor penalties?

Viking River Cruises seeks to compel arbitration of a state labor penalty claim. The employee resists this move.

Official caption
Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion 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.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Paul Clement argued that prior Supreme Court decisions control the outcome. He stated that states cannot declare statutes too important for arbitration.

    Clement noted similarities between state penalty claims and collective actions. He emphasized the need for consistent arbitration enforcement.

    Nelson argued that the state creates a right of action for employees. He stated that employees sue on the state's behalf to recover penalties.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests whether the Federal Arbitration Act overrides state labor laws. It asks if private arbitration can replace public enforcement of labor codes.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 30, 2022.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Viking River Cruises wants the Court to enforce the arbitration agreement. It seeks to stop the state penalty lawsuit.

Moriana wants the Court to reject the arbitration demand. She seeks to keep the state penalty claim in court.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Viking River Cruises argues the Federal Arbitration Act mandates arbitration. It claims state laws cannot exempt these claims from private resolution.

Moriana argues the state penalty claim is distinct from private disputes. She contends the state retains the right to enforce labor codes publicly.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Kagan asked if the state could bring this lawsuit in an aggregated way.

Justice Breyer asked about the differences between this claim and a class action.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute determines whether employers can privatize state labor enforcement. It affects the balance between private arbitration and public regulatory power.

Official sources for this section

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 Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON