[eadler]

I used the ellipse for emphasis rather than dishonesty. The full quote was above. (If HN supported formatting I'd perhaps have used bold instead of ellipse+elision.)

And yes. I read the full text of Circuit City including every footnote. I've also read multiple analysis of the opinion by different scholars. I've also read multiple articles by the original author of the text as well as transcripts of the Congressional debate at the time it passed.

The reasoning for specifically mentioning transportation workers is that there are separate statues for arbitration or worker-contract for those workers and Congress did not want to conflict.

Circuit City was an error.

[leereeves]

If the act was intended to exclude all employment contracts, why did it not simply say that?

It could have simply said "nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment". Instead it lists specific kinds of contracts it shall not apply to.

And the explanation that "Congress did not want to conflict" doesn't make sense. Excluding all workers from this act would ensure that this act does not conflict, not mentioning them does not ensure that.

[eadler]

Bear in mind this was written in 1928 in a very different legal context. In particular it was written before the Erie double-reversal [0].

Personally, I think it was poorly drafted by modern standards. Today, this particular exclusion would be something like adding an additional paragraph with text that says "nothing herein shall affect any provision of any other statue" (please excuse my imprecision)

Julius Henry Cohen, one of the key authors of the law, wrote the following (ellipse and elision for emphasis. Please see the full source for full text):

> ... which commands an unusually widespread support in the business world because the reform is directed primarily toward settlement of commercial disputes...

> A written provision for arbitration contained in any contract which involves maritime transactions ... or interstate commerce as generally defined, is made "valid, enforceable and irrevocable,"

> It must be read in the light of the situation which it was devised to correct and of the history of arbitration anid of similar statutes in the recent past.

> The evils which arbitration is intended to correct are three in number: (1) The long delay usuallv incident to a proceeding at law, in equity or in admiralty, especially in recent years in centers of commercial activity, where there has arisen great congestion of the court calendars. nce. (2) The expense of litigation. (3) The failure, through litigation, to reach a decision regarded as just when measured by the standards of the business world.

> Arbitration under the Federal and similar statutes is simply a new procedural remedy, particularly adapted to the settlement of commercial dispute

> 'Information collected by the Department of Commerce over the past several years' hie said, 'clearly showed that the substantial element of the American business public is overwhelmingly in favor of arbitration in the settlement of *commercial disputes* in both domestic and foreign trade

While I don't quote it here, there is also interesting rules around jurisdictions which the law was trying to dance around.

Please also see [2]

58 See Leslie, supranote 57, at 309 ("Congress did not intend the FAA to facilitate firms imposing arbitration clauses on consumers through contracts of adhesion.... For example, in colloquy, when senators raised the issue of contracts of adhesion, the bill's supporters testified that the FAA would not apply to such situations."); id. at 310-11 ("During the earliest hearings for the FAA, concerns were expressed that the Act could cover employment . .. . The Act's text was amended [to exclude] 'contracts of employment of ... any ... class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.' . . . [T]he amendment appeased labor interests, who removed their opposition to the bill." (footnote omitted) (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 1 (2012))); Margaret L. Moses, Statutory Misconstruction: How the Supreme Court Created a FederalArbitrationLaw Never Enacted by Congress, 34 FLA. ST. U. L. REv. 99, 147 (2006) ("[N]o one in 1925-not the drafters, the Secretary of Commerce, organ ized labor, nor members of Congress-believed that the FAA applied to employment contracts.").

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/erie_doctrine

[1] Cohen, J. H., & Dayton, K. (1926). The New Federal Arbitration Law. Virginia Law Review, 12(4), 265–286. https://doi.org/10.2307/1065471 pp 265

[2] Fitzpatrick, B. T. (2017). Justice Scalia and Class Actions. Notre Dame Law Review, 92, 1977. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications/... pp 1986 note 58 (via citation)

[eadler]

You also inspired me to go looking at this one [3]. I have not yet read it in full so please excuse any errors of understanding. (I have a backlog of 263 items at the moment).

> These points represent at best pure speculation, which a fair reading of the legislative history quickly undercuts. As Professor Schwartz has pointed out, language in the bill concerning contracts involving commerce was amended at the request of Senator Walsh, who wanted to narrow the effect of the Act, not expand it.178 Prior to amendment in 1924,179 the bill which became the FAA provided coverage of three categories: “any contract or maritime transaction or transaction involving commerce.”180 The application of the FAA to “any contract” would have included contracts not in interstate commerce.181 At the time, contracts not considered in interstate commerce included most employment contracts and insurance contracts.182 Senator Walsh’s amendment limited contracts covered by the Act to any “contract evidencing a . . . transaction involving commerce.”183 His clear intent was to prevent the application of the FAA to contracts such as those of insurance and employment, which he considered adhesion contracts.184 Thus, by limiting the scope of the FAA to contracts which were actually considered in interstate commerce, Congress was reducing the reach of the bill, not expanding it to apply in state courts.

It is possible I misremember or misstated the conflict comment I made above too. I do know that for example: train and airline employees have explicit statues for their contracts. I am also certain that I read at least one article about this conflict between the FAA and other statutes. I am having some trouble locating it at the moment (I've read 198 articles on the topic) though.

[I actually made https://arbitrationinformation.org/ originally as my own personal notes since my memory isn't great. It only turned into a website once I realised that my notes would be useful for other people.]

[3] Margaret L Moses. (2006). Statutory Miconstruction: How the Supreme Court Created a Federal Arbitration Law Never Enacted by Congress. Florida State University Law Review, 34(1). https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol34/iss1/3