InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Stolt-Nielsen S. A., et al. v. Animalfeeds International Corp.

The court held that class action arbitration is permitted under the Federal Arbitration Act only if all parties specifically agree to it.

559 U.S. 662 · No. 08-1198 · 2009 term · Roberts Court

Decided Apr 27, 2010 · argued Dec 9, 2009

Economic activity · Arbitration (other than as pertains to labor-management or employer-employee relations

Majority opinion: Samuel Alito

The voteMajorityDissent

5–35 in the majority, 3 in dissent

3 dissents (6–3)

Reversed and remanded. Stolt-Nielsen S. A., et al. won.

What this ruling means

Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Stolt-Nielsen S. A., et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that class action arbitration is permitted under the Federal Arbitration Act only if all parties specifically agree to it.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2009 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianStevensGinsburgBreyerKennedyJ. RobertsAlitoScaliaThomas

Majority(5)

Dissent(3)

Did not take part: Sonia Sotomayor.

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Stolt-Nielsen S. A., et al.Water transportation, stevedore
Respondent
Animalfeeds International Corp.Shipper
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
9-1
Kind of law
Infrequently litigated statutes
Decided by
Statutory construction
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Apr 27, 2010DecidedDecided · Decided 5–3: reversed and remanded. Stolt-Nielsen S. A., et al. won.
  2. Dec 9, 2009ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: reversed and remanded.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the New York Southern U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

27 other argued cases since 1946 on arbitration (other than as pertains to labor-management or employer-employee relations, newest first.

  1. Flower Foods v. Brock146 S. Ct. 1358May 28, 2026 · 146 S. Ct. 1358Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  2. Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties608 U.S. 200May 14, 2026 · 608 U.S. 200Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  3. Coinbase v. Suski144 S. Ct. 1186May 23, 2024 · 144 S. Ct. 1186Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  4. Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski599 U.S. 736Jun 23, 2023 · 599 U.S. 736Economic activity5–45–4 band

  5. ZF Automotive US v. Luxshare, Ltd.142 S. Ct. 2078Jun 13, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 2078Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  6. Ge Energy Power Conversion France Sas v. Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC140 S. Ct. 1637Jun 1, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 1637Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  7. Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc.139 S. Ct. 524Jan 8, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 524Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  8. Kindred Nursing Centers v. Clark137 S. Ct. 1421May 15, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 1421Economic activity7–18–1 band

  9. Directv, Inc. v. Imburgia577 U.S. 47Dec 14, 2015 · 577 U.S. 47Economic activity6–36–3 band

  10. BG Group PLC v. Republic of Argentina572 U.S. 25Mar 5, 2014 · 572 U.S. 25Economic activity7–27–2 band

  11. American Express Company, et al., Petitioners v. Italian Colors Restaurant, et al.570 U.S. 228Jun 20, 2013 · 570 U.S. 228Economic activity5–36–3 band
  12. Oxford Health Plans LLC, Petitioner v. John Ivan Sutter569 U.S. 564Jun 10, 2013 · 569 U.S. 564Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  13. Compucredit Corporation et al. v. Wanda Greenwood et al.565 U.S. 95Jan 10, 2012 · 565 U.S. 95Economic activity8–18–1 band

  14. AT&T Mobility LLC, Petitioner v. Vincent ConcepcionLandmark · Businesses/Corporations/Contracts563 U.S. 333Apr 27, 2011 · 563 U.S. 333Economic activity5–45–4 band

  15. Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc552 U.S. 576Mar 25, 2008 · 552 U.S. 576Economic activity6–36–3 band

  16. Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. John Cardegna et al.546 U.S. 440Feb 21, 2006 · 546 U.S. 440Economic activity7–18–1 band

  17. Green Tree Financial Corp., Nka Conseco Finance Corp. v. Lynn W. Bazzle et al., in a Representative Capacity on Behalf of a Class and for All Others Similarly Situated, et al.539 U.S. 444Jun 23, 2003 · 539 U.S. 444Economic activity5–45–4 band

  18. Karen Howsam, etc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.537 U.S. 79Dec 10, 2002 · 537 U.S. 79Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
  19. First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Manuel Kaplan, et ux. and MK Investments, Inc.514 U.S. 938May 22, 1995 · 514 U.S. 938Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  20. Shearson/American Express Inc. et al. v. McMahon et al.482 U.S. 220Jun 8, 1987 · 482 U.S. 220Economic activity5–45–4 band

  21. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Landmark · Businesses/Corporations/Contracts473 U.S. 614Jul 2, 1985 · 473 U.S. 614Economic activity5–36–3 band

  22. Thomas, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co. et al.473 U.S. 568Jul 1, 1985 · 473 U.S. 568Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  23. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd470 U.S. 213Mar 4, 1985 · 470 U.S. 213Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  24. Southland Corp. et al. v. Keating et al.Landmark · Businesses/Corporations/Contracts465 U.S. 1Jan 23, 1984 · 465 U.S. 1Economic activity6–36–3 band

  25. Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co. et al.393 U.S. 145Nov 18, 1968 · 393 U.S. 145Economic activity6–36–3 band
  26. Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.Landmark · Businesses/Corporations/Contracts388 U.S. 395Jun 12, 1967 · 388 U.S. 395Economic activity6–36–3 band
  27. Moseley, Doing Business As Moseley Plumbing & Heating Co., v. Electronic & Missile Facilities, Inc., et al.374 U.S. 167Jun 17, 1963 · 374 U.S. 167Economic activity8–18–1 band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.