Badgerow v. Walters

Rules and maxims of statutory interpretation dictate that when congress omits language from one section of the statute while including it elsewhere the Court must find that choice as intentional.

Petitioner filed an arbitration against her employers, Respondent, for wrongful termination which was dismissed by the arbitrators. Petitioner was upset with the decision, and filed suit in state court which was removed to federal court by Respondent. Respondent moved to have the arbitration award affirmed and Petitioner moved to have the case remanded back to state court for lack of jurisdiction. The District Court held that the “look through” approach was appropriate for the consistency of all applications under the FAA. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and reasoned that Sections 9 and 10 contain none of the same language that the court in Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U. S. 49 relied on when creating the “look through” approach and therefore the rule should not apply. Rules and maxims of statutory interpretation dictate that when congress omits language from one section of the statute while including it elsewhere, the Court must find that choice as intentional. Thus, the look through approach applies under FAA Section 4, but not to sections 9 and 10. REVERSED and REMANDED.