meta_pixel
Tapesearch Logo
Log in
Case in Point: The Legal Show on the Hottest Legal Cases in Politics and Culture

#233: An Epic Dissent

Case in Point: The Legal Show on the Hottest Legal Cases in Politics and Culture

The Heritage Foundation

Government

4.5527 Ratings

🗓️ 25 May 2018

⏱️ 30 minutes

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

This week, Elizabeth & Tiffany break down the Supreme Court's arbitration decision, Ginsburg's epic dissent, and other orders. SCOTUS all-star Kannon Shanmugam stops by to reminisce about his many impressive bosses. Tune in for Supreme Trivia - Memorial Day edition!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0

I'm Elizabeth Lattery and I'm Tiffany Bates.

0:05.5

And welcome to SCOTUS 101 where we break down what's happening at the Supreme Court,

0:09.4

what the justices are up to, and other things related to our favorite branch of government.

0:13.4

This week we're talking about an epic new Supreme Court case, new grants,

0:17.2

and we'll interview Supreme Court All-Star Cannon- Shamugam.

0:20.5

The Supreme Court issued two new opinions this week, so I think they have about 30 left to go before the term is over.

0:26.9

And both opinions were written by Justice Gorsuch.

0:29.4

First up is Epic Systems Corporation versus Lewis, which was decided 5'4.

0:34.3

This case involves class action suits brought by employees who claim that their employers

0:38.6

failed to provide adequate overtime pay. The issue is whether employees may pursue class action

0:43.8

or collective litigation against an employer when they have a contract providing for

0:48.0

individualized arbitration. The court held that the Federal Arbitration Act requires arbitration

0:53.9

agreements providing for individualized proceedings must be enforced.

0:58.0

By way of background, Congress passed the Arbitration Act in 1925, saying that agreements to arbitrate disputes are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable.

1:07.9

Writing for the majority, Justice Gorsuch explained that Congress enacted the

1:11.9

Arbitration Act in response to, quote, a perception that courts were unduly hostile to arbitration,

1:18.3

and in instructing courts to enforce these agreements, Congress, quote, specifically directed

1:23.6

courts to respect and enforce the party's chosen arbitration procedures. But the employees in this

1:29.1

case argue that the National Labor Relations Act, which was passed in 1935, changed this. Now, the NLRA allows

1:36.4

employees to work together for mutual aid and protection. Justice Gorsuch explained in his opinion

1:41.6

that the NLRA focuses on the right to organize unions and bargain

1:45.9

collectively. He said, it does not even hint at a wish to displace the Arbitration Act, let alone

...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from The Heritage Foundation, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of The Heritage Foundation and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.

Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.