Warning

Info

Table of Contents
LegalWriter, HLS '22 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams

(2001)

Supreme Court of the United States - 532 U.S. 105

tl;dr:

The Federal Arbitration Act only exempts the employment contracts of transportation workers from its rule that arbitration agreements are binding.

Video Summary

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingCircuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams case brief facts & holding

Facts:The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) mandates the enforcement of arbitration...

Holding:Holding (Kennedy): The Federal Arbitration Act only exempts the employment...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: Justice Kennedy
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) exemption for transportation workers applies to all employment contracts. The case involved an employment application signed by Saint Clair Adams, which included a provision for final and binding arbitration of any claims arising from his employment or cessation of employment with Circuit City. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the FAA does not apply to contracts of employment, which was challenged by Circuit City in the Supreme Court. The Court applied the maxim ejusdem generis to conclude that the residual clause in the FAA's §1 exclusion provision should be read to give effect to the terms "seamen" and "railroad employees" and should be controlled and defined by reference to the enumerated categories of workers preceding it. The Court rejected the argument that all employment contracts are excluded from the FAA's §1 exclusion provision. The Court interpreted the phrases "affecting commerce" and "involving commerce" to indicate Congress' intent to regulate to the outer limits of its authority under the Commerce Clause. The Court consistently interpreted the phrases "in commerce" and "engaged in commerce" narrowly, rather than expansively, based on the objective and consistent significance of the words Congress uses when it defines the reach of a statute. The Court rejected arguments that the meaning of these phrases should vary depending on the date of adoption.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Dissenting opinion, author: Justice Stevens
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The dissenting opinion argues that the narrow interpretation of §1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is inconsistent with the broad interpretation of §2. The exclusion of employment contracts from the scope of §2 was intended to respond to concerns of labor organizations that §2 might encompass employment contracts by exempting the labor agreements of "any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." The legislation was not intended to apply to employment contracts at all, both before and after the amendment to §1. The Supreme Court held that §301 of the LMRA provided the authority to compel arbitration in a suit brought under §301, rather than the FAA. The Court rejected the union's argument that the FAA authorized the enforcement of arbitration agreements in collective-bargaining agreements. While this interpretation does not set a legal precedent, it has gained support from Justice Marshall and other Justices. Recent Court of Appeals opinions have expanded the scope of the Act beyond what Congress intended, which Justices Stevens and O'Connor have previously dissented on.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Dissenting opinion, author: Justice Souter
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The passage discusses the interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act's exemption for employment contracts relating to seamen, railroad employees or workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce. The Court rejects an interpretation of the exemption based on its evolution over time and instead limits its scope using the interpretive principle of ejusdem generis. This means that the exemption only applies to examples of the same category as the preceding named occupations, which excludes the respondent from the exemption's benefit as he is employed by a retail seller, not a carrier engaged in the transportation of goods. The Court does not examine the legislative history of the exclusion provision, which differs from previous cases in which legislative history and regulatory enforcement were taken into account to determine the meaning of similar phrases.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams

Chat for Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams
brief-373
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.