The Visionary, Books + Cafe, LLC v. Bank OZK

This petition concerns the proper scope of judicial review under §10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act, which permits a court to vacate an arbitral award where “the arbitrators exceeded their powers.” This Court has held that arbitrators possess only the authority the parties confer by contract. First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995). In applying 9 U.S.C. §10(a)(4) after Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564 (2013), lower courts have differed on whether a court must examine arbitral authority if an arbitrator purports to interpret a contract.

1. After Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564, does 9 U.S.C. §10(a)(4) require a court to compare an arbitral award with the scope of an arbitrator’s powers to determine whether the arbitrator exceeded his or her powers, even where the arbitrator purported to interpret the contract?

2. Does a court of appeals violate the partypresentation principle by affirming a judgment on multiple dispositive sua sponte grounds that were neither raised nor briefed by the parties, without providing the parties advance notice or an opportunity to be heard, contrary to this Court’s precedent, including United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. 371 (2020)?