Imperfect Minimalism: Unanswered Questions in Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. V. Mattel, Inc‪.‬

Benjamin Franklin embodied hope in his question, "When will mankind be convinced, and agree to settle their differences by arbitration?" (1) Arbitration, however, received an icy welcome from the American judicial system. To counteract judicial hostility to arbitration, (2) Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in 1925. (3) Although many disputes about the reach of the FAA center on a claim's initial arbitrability, the circuits have split on whether the FAA's post-arbitration judicial review provisions are open to expansion by contracting parties. (4) Last Term, in Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., (5) the Supreme Court held that sections 9-11 of the FAA provide the exclusive grounds for expedited judicial review of arbitration awards. (6) In many respects, the Court produced a classic minimalist opinion. The entire opinion, along with the two dissents, spanned a mere ten pages, and the majority's narrow holding avoided deciding potentially divisive issues. But the single issue the Court did resolve raised many new questions. Like Hercules struggling with the Hydra, lower courts now disagree on multiple questions created by the Court's overly narrow opinion. Consequently, Hall Street illustrates the danger of sacrificing clear guidance on the altar of minimalism. Tenant Mattel leased property for a manufacturing site from landlord Hall Street. (7) The lease contained a clause indemnifying Hall Street for any costs caused by Mattel's failure to follow environmental laws. (8) In 1998, tests of the property's well water revealed high levels of trichloroethylene and other pollutants, and three years later, Mattel gave notice of intent to terminate the lease. (9) Hall Street filed suit in federal court, seeking indemnification for the costs to clean up the polluted property. (10)