• Home
  • RSS Feeds
  • Blog Archives
Subscribe to Disputing
Book an ADR Service
Call Karl Bayer
Karl Bayer's Disputing Blog - Mediator, Arbitrator, Court Master & Technical Advisor
About Karl  |  Book an ADR Service  |  Contact Karl   (214) 891-4505

Menu 
  • home
  • Mediation
  • Arbitration
  • Court Neutrals
  • Online Dispute Resolution
  • Technology
    • Intellectual Property
    • Privacy and Cybersecurity
    • E-discovery
  • Court Decisions
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • Fifth Circuit
    • Third Court of Appeals
    • U.S. Supreme Court
  • More
    • Legislation
      • Texas
      • United States
    • Healthcare
    • Guest Posts
      • John DeGroote
      • John C. Fleming
      • Rick Freeman
      • Professor Peter Friedman
      • Honorable W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
      • James M. Gaitis
      • Laura A. Kaster
      • Professor John Lande
      • Philip J. Loree, Jr.
      • Michael McIlwrath
      • F. Peter Phillips
      • Professor Alan Scott Rau
      • Professor Thomas J. Stipanowich
      • Professor S.I. Strong
      • Richard Webb
      • Glen M. Wilkerson
    • International arbitration
    • Regulation
    • Sports and Entertainment


Third Circuit Rules Delaware Arbitration Program is Unconstitutional

0
by Beth Graham

Wednesday, Oct 23, 2013


Tweet

Today, a panel for the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that business arbitrations conducted behind closed doors by members of Delaware’s Chancery Court are unconstitutional.  The unique and controversial Delaware Arbitration Program was created by statute in 2009 in an effort to make the state’s court system more efficient for the many corporations based there.  As part of the optional program, sitting Chancery Court judges could act as an arbitrator in business disputes.  In 2011, the Delaware Coalition for Open Government challenged the law that created the arbitration program by arguing it violated the public’s First Amendment right to access civil trials.  Last year, a federal judge agreed with the coalition and suspended the program.  In Delaware Coalition for Open Government, Inc. v. The Hon. Leo E. Strine, Jr., et al., No 12-3859 (3rd Cir., Oct. 23, 2013), the appeals court affirmed by a margin of 2-1.

Related Posts

  • Part Three:  Thoughts on the Constitutionality of the Delaware Arbitration ProgramPart Three: Thoughts on the Constitutionality of the Delaware Arbitration Program
  • Part Two:  A Constitutional Challenge to the Delaware Arbitration ProgramPart Two: A Constitutional Challenge to the Delaware Arbitration Program
  • Fifth Circuit Affirms Arbitrator’s Decision in Insurance DisputeFifth Circuit Affirms Arbitrator’s Decision in Insurance Dispute
  • Fifth Circuit Affirms Vacatur of Arbitration Award Where Intent to Arbitrate Was Not Clear and UnmistakableFifth Circuit Affirms Vacatur of Arbitration Award Where Intent to Arbitrate Was Not Clear and Unmistakable
  • Arbitration and the Future of Delaware’s Corporate Law FranchiseArbitration and the Future of Delaware’s Corporate Law Franchise
  • Part One: A Brief Overview of the Delaware Arbitration ProgramPart One: A Brief Overview of the Delaware Arbitration Program

Like this article? Share it!


  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
    LinkedIn

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
    X

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
    Facebook

  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
    Pinterest

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
    Email
About Beth Graham

Beth Graham earned a Master of Arts in Information Science and Learning Technologies from the University of Missouri-Columbia, and a Juris Doctor from the University of Nebraska College of Law, where she was an Eastman Memorial Law Scholar. Beth is licensed to practice law in Texas and the District of Columbia. She is also a member of the Texas Bar College and holds CIPP/US, CIPP/E, and CIPM certifications from the International Association of Privacy Professionals.

Legal Research

Legal Research

Connect with Disputing

Visit Us On LinkedinCheck Our Feed

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

Recent Posts

We're Back!!!!
Feb 24, 2025
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
May 28, 2024
Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements: The Twenty-First Century Arbitration Battleground and Implications for the EU Countries
Nov 27, 2023

Featured Posts

Tips on Taking Good Remote Depositions From a Veteran Court Reporter

Online Mediation May Allow Restorative Justice to Continue During COVID-19

Remote Arbitration Best Practices: Witness Examination

Search

Legal Research

Legal Research


© 2025, Karl Bayer. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy