The Supreme Court of the United States announced decisions in three cases today:

Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, No. 12-135: Respondent John Sutter, a pediatrician, brought a putative class action on behalf of himself and other physicians under contract with Oxford Health Plans, a health insurance company, over payments under the terms of their agreements. These agreements included an arbitration provision, and the New Jersey state court referred the suit to arbitration upon Oxford’s motion. The parties agreed that the arbitrator should determine whether the agreement authorized class arbitration, but after the arbitrator decided that it did, Oxford filed a motion in federal court to vacate that decision on the ground that it exceeded the arbitrator’s powers under §10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act. The District Court denied the motion, and the Third Circuit affirmed. Today, the Court affirmed, holding that under §10(a)(4), the question for a judge is not whether the arbitrator construed the parties’ contract correctly, but whether he construed it at all, and that here, the arbitrator did construe the contract, and thus did not exceed his powers.

The Court's decision is available here.

Horne v. Department of Agriculture, No. 12-123: This case, which addresses a jurisdictional question surrounding constitutional takings claims, originated as an administrative proceeding by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) against petitioners, who are California raisin growers. Under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (AMAA) and a corresponding California Raisin Marketing Order (Order), raisin “handlers” are often required to turn over a percentage of their crop to the Federal Government in order to help stabilize prices, and if they fail to do so, may be subject to civil and criminal penalties. The USDA brought this administrative proceeding against the petitioners, alleging that the petitioners were “handlers,” and had refused to surrender the requisite portion of raisins. Petitioners challenged the allegations, claiming that they were “producers,” not “handlers,” and thus not subject to the requirements at issue, and raising the affirmative defense that the Order was an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Petitioners’ arguments were rejected during the administrative process, and similarly rejected when petitioners sought review in Federal District Court. The Ninth Circuit, in turn, affirmed, holding that the petitioners were “handlers,” and that the Ninth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to resolve the takings claim, which should have been raised in the Court of Federal Claims. Today, the Court reversed, holding that the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction to decide whether the USDA’s imposition of fines and civil penalties on petitioners, in their capacity as handlers, violated the Fifth Amendment. This claim was properly before the court because the AMAA provides a comprehensive remedial scheme that withdraws Tucker Act jurisdiction over takings claims brought by raisin handlers.

The Court's decision is available here.

Peugh v. United States, No. 12-62: Petitioner Peugh was convicted of five counts of bank fraud. At sentencing, Peugh argued that the Ex Post Facto Clause required that he be sentenced under the 1998 version of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time of his offenses, which recommended a 30 to 37 month sentence, rather than the 2009 version in effect at the time of sentencing, which recommended 70 to 87 months. The District Court rejected this argument and sentenced him to 70 months’ imprisonment, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Court today reversed, holding that there is an ex post facto violation when a defendant is sentenced under Guidelines promulgated after he committed his criminal acts and the new version provides a higher applicable Guidelines sentencing range than the version in place at the time of the offense.

The Court's decision is available here.

The Court also granted review today in one case:

BG Group PLC v. Argentina, No. 12-138: In disputes involving a multi-staged dispute resolution process, does a court or the arbitrator determine whether a precondition to arbitration has been satisfied?