In DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, 136 S. Ct. 463 (Dec. 14, 2015), the Supreme Court held that the California courts erred by refusing to enforce an arbitration clause in the respondents' contract with DIRECTV. Instead, the Court said, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempted the state courts' interpretation of the relevant clause, and therefore the state courts should have granted DIRECTV's request to compel arbitration.

The principal dissent, authored by Justice Ginsburg, repeatedly cited Judith Resnik's Feature, Diffusing Disputes, from Volume 124 of the Journal. Justice Ginsburg used the piece to support her argument that "[t]he proliferation of take-it-or-leave-it agreements mandating arbitration and banning class procedures, and this Court's readiness to enforce such one-sided agreements, have disabled consumers from 'shop[ping] to avoid arbitration mandates'"--a state of affairs that, she further argued, was contrary to the text and purpose of the FAA. See Imburgia, 136 S. Ct. at 477-78 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). 

Professor Resnik's Feature was published in Volume 124, Issue 8 as one piece in a Collection on "Arbitration, Transparency, and Privatization."