Smashin222
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 773
- Reaction score
- 383
The Fifth Circuit will review the lower court's judgment under a highly deferential standard called "abuse of discretion." They will have to find a clear misapplication of one of the 4 preliminary injunction factors. In this case it will likely be "likelihood of success on the merits." The judges will have to decide whether Judge Mazzant abused his discretion in finding jurisdiction, standing or that the circumstances here were egregious enough to override the substantial deference afforded to arbitral awards.
Folks talking about "conservatives upholding the law and liberals upholding special interests" have no idea what they're talking about. Please ignore.
Courts tend to support substantial deference to the private arrangements of informed actors. The NFLPA and NFL agreed, through private contract, to arbitration for these issues and bargained for the procedures to govern those arbitrations. Courts are loathe to insert themselves into those contractual arrangements beyond enforcing the awards granted therein. That's why this decision repeatedly mentions the deference given and the "extreme circumstances" presented here.
While the gap between "conservative" and "liberal" justices is often on display on social issues, you can take a look at Supreme Court jurisprudence on arbitration decisions to see that they are often bipartisan and almost always are based on the principle of deference to arbitrators. The list of exceptions underwhich a Court will intervene to overturn an arbitrator's decision are exceedingly slim. ere the question is whether the arbitrator engaged in serious misconduct by not providing Zeke and the NFLPA a full opportunity to defend themselves.
How far a court is willing to go in saying that a proceeding "lacked fundamental fairness" and what constitutes "serious misconduct" is perhaps a question that liberal and conservative judges will disagree about, but I doubt that, if you are not a lawyer, you're really prepared to engage that discussion. My take, is that liberal justices often attempt to preserve or inject external indices of fairness (and thereby imposing obligations or conditions on the arbitration that were not explicitly bargained for) and conservative justices tend to grant deference to the parties' original bargains. But that's no guarantee. Judge Chin was an Obama appointee and upheld Brady. The Supreme Court voted 7-2 to uphold an arbitral award against Argentina in which one party didn't satisfy the conditions to even enter arbitration (and objected to its presence in arbitration the whole way through).
I have no idea how this conversation got so off the rails, but, I repeat, if you're not a lawyer, and you're weighing in with your opinion on issues not listed above, you're distracting and misleading people and you should stop.
Folks talking about "conservatives upholding the law and liberals upholding special interests" have no idea what they're talking about. Please ignore.
Courts tend to support substantial deference to the private arrangements of informed actors. The NFLPA and NFL agreed, through private contract, to arbitration for these issues and bargained for the procedures to govern those arbitrations. Courts are loathe to insert themselves into those contractual arrangements beyond enforcing the awards granted therein. That's why this decision repeatedly mentions the deference given and the "extreme circumstances" presented here.
While the gap between "conservative" and "liberal" justices is often on display on social issues, you can take a look at Supreme Court jurisprudence on arbitration decisions to see that they are often bipartisan and almost always are based on the principle of deference to arbitrators. The list of exceptions underwhich a Court will intervene to overturn an arbitrator's decision are exceedingly slim. ere the question is whether the arbitrator engaged in serious misconduct by not providing Zeke and the NFLPA a full opportunity to defend themselves.
How far a court is willing to go in saying that a proceeding "lacked fundamental fairness" and what constitutes "serious misconduct" is perhaps a question that liberal and conservative judges will disagree about, but I doubt that, if you are not a lawyer, you're really prepared to engage that discussion. My take, is that liberal justices often attempt to preserve or inject external indices of fairness (and thereby imposing obligations or conditions on the arbitration that were not explicitly bargained for) and conservative justices tend to grant deference to the parties' original bargains. But that's no guarantee. Judge Chin was an Obama appointee and upheld Brady. The Supreme Court voted 7-2 to uphold an arbitral award against Argentina in which one party didn't satisfy the conditions to even enter arbitration (and objected to its presence in arbitration the whole way through).
I have no idea how this conversation got so off the rails, but, I repeat, if you're not a lawyer, and you're weighing in with your opinion on issues not listed above, you're distracting and misleading people and you should stop.
