Interested in training for your team? Click here to learn more

Post-Arbitration Judicial Proceedings: Implementing Badgerow v. Walters and Returning to State Court

How Badgerow May Shift the Balance of Power When Vacating or Confirming an Arbitration Award

Recording of a 90-minute CLE video webinar with Q&A

This program is included with the Strafford CLE Pass. Click for more information.
This program is included with the Strafford All-Access Pass. Click for more information.

Conducted on Thursday, June 16, 2022

Recorded event now available

or call 1-800-926-7926

This CLE course will explore the significant changes in post-arbitration proceedings after the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection in Badgerow of "look through" federal jurisdiction. The program will address how the nature of post-arbitration review has been altered and what moving a substantial number of petitions for confirmation or vacatur off federal court dockets and onto those of state courts means. The program will offer insights about what practitioners should consider, including where to pursue either confirmation or vacatur of an arbitration award.


After a completed arbitration, one or both parties involved often seek judicial review of the arbitrator’s award: the prevailing party to confirm and the losing party to vacate. These post-arbitration filings are usually governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which narrowly circumscribes judicial review of the arbitration award. So parties seek post-arbitration review in federal court.

But the FAA does itself confer federal subject matter jurisdiction on federal courts for post-arbitration proceedings or tell federal courts how to analyze whether they actually have jurisdiction. Different circuit courts have developed different analytical approaches. On Mar. 31, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Badgerow v. Walters, No. 20-1143, resolving this circuit split.

The Court's decision, grounded in FAA Sections 9 and 10, rejects the "look-through" approach for determining whether federal jurisdiction exists over a post-arbitration petition. But Badgerow does more than resolve the split in authority: it places state courts at the heart of post-arbitration proceedings.

The practical effect of Badgerow is that parties will more frequently be required to file post-arbitral motions in state court, even if an initial motion to compel arbitration was adjudicated in federal court. The Court's decision explicitly endorses this result, noting that "enforcement of the Act ... is left in large part to the state courts."

Listen as this experienced panel of litigators discusses how the Badgerow decision is expected to alter arbitration proceedings, what counsel must consider when seeking to compel arbitration, and how to enforce or challenge a resulting decision.



  1. The bases for confirming an arbitral award
    1. The bases for seeking vacatur of an arbitral award
    2. Arbitrator bias
    3. Arbitrators exceeding their authority
    4. Arbitrator refusal to hear pertinent evidence
  2. Cross-petitions for confirmation and vacatur
  3. Jurisdictional and procedural issues in seeking judicial review of an arbitral award
  4. Timing limitations
  5. Seeking further review by an appellate court


The panel will review these and other key issues:

  • Are federal courts available to confirm or vacate arbitration awards?
  • Can post-judgment relief procedures be used to alter arbitration awards?
  • How will counsel need to adjust their strategies for post-arbitration proceedings in state court?
  • What should counsel consider when seeking appellate review?
  • When does a federal court have an "independent jurisdictional basis" to petition a federal court for arbitral relief?


Jaroff, Aaron
Aaron F. Jaroff


Mr. Jaroff focuses his practice on financial services litigation, advising a wide variety of commercial and investment...  |  Read More

Kutrow, Bradley
Bradley R. Kutrow


Mr. Kutrow is a partner in the firm's Financial Services Litigation Department and is co-chair of the firm's...  |  Read More

Madrid, Alexander
Alexander M. Madrid


Mr. Madrid has a broad range of litigation and regulatory experience representing financial institutions and other...  |  Read More

Access Anytime, Anywhere

Strafford will process CLE credit for one person on each recording. All formats include course handouts.

To find out which recorded format will provide the best CLE option, select your state:

CLE On-Demand Video