The Pretext of Textualism: Disregarding Stare Decisis in 14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett

Abstract

In 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, the Supreme Court ignored the principles of stare decisis and justified its disregard of precedent established thirty-five years earlier in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. on the basis of changed judicial methods of interpretation. This article will examine how the Supreme Court, in Pyett, as well as in other decisions, has used the judicial method of interpretation known as including a version I call no-text textualism, to reinvent statutes, abandon precedent, and create its own norms in the field of arbitration. The Pyett decision demonstrates how the Supreme Court has freely disregarded a statute's text, its legislative history, and even the Court's own judicial precedent when fashioning a law of arbitration to suit its policy preferences. In the field of arbitration, the Court's use of textualism has frequently served as a pretext for creating national law and policy that differ substantially from statutory text and purpose as evidenced by legislative history. Pyett serves as a strong invitation to Congress to adopt new that will overturn inconsistent legislation created by the Court.