U.S. Supreme Court "Pro-Arbitration Trend" Tested in Rent-A-Center

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday heard oral argument in Rent-A-Center, West v. Jackson, a case that asks whether judges can invalidate an arbitration agreement because it is unconscionable, even when the parties to the agreement have clearly delegated the authority to invalidate exclusively to an arbitrator.  In arguing for courts to retain a role, consumer groups assert that arbitration clauses and the arbitrators themselves are biased toward business.  Public Citizen estimates that arbitrators rule for business 94% of the time.  Business argues that an unfavorable decision in this case would undermine the validity of arbitration agreements and allow destructive second-guessing by the courts. While several Justices reportedly seemed sympathetic to concerns about egregious agreements, Tony Mauro at National Law Journal believes that the Justices' questions indicate that the two-decade "pro-arbitration" trend will continue. Dahlia Lithwick at Slate agrees.  An extended hypothetical from Justice Breyer based on "Joe Bananas," the nickname of Mafia boss Joseph Bonanno, warranted its own separate story in the National Law Journal.  The oral argument transcript is here.