California is not the only state that has attempted to ban binding arbitration agreements, nor is it the only state that has been stopped for pre-emption prohibition. Just two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned an anti-arbitration decision by the Kentucky Supreme Court. There, the Kentucky court attempted to invalidate the arbitration agreements based on the state Constitution`s declaration of the right of access to justice and the “sacred” and “inviolable” nature of the jury trial. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the state court`s decision and upheld its long-standing precedent for enforcing arbitration agreements under the FAA. From 1715, if the governor signs it, will probably be suppressed under the precedent of the FAA and the Supreme Court of the United States. As noted above, the FAA anticipates all state laws that are inconsistent with the FAA`s goal of promoting arbitration. In Doctor`s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto and Circuit City Stores v. The key concept was that the application was “governed by the [FAA].” Since the move for enforcement involved the enforcement of the agreement, the FAA sought and the court had to impose arbitration on the buyer`s claim.
. . .