9 U.S.C. § 10
Section 10 · Same; vacation; grounds; rehearing
This is the Federal Arbitration Act
Amended 4 times on record
Applied in 2,516 court decisions — leading case Mitsubishi Motors Corporation v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc (1985)
Most recently applied in 2026 IL App (1st) 241488 - Morgan v. Silver Financial Capital, Inc. (March 2026)
Applied most in the Second Circuit Circuit (113 decisions)
Cases citing this section usually also cite 9 U.S.C. § 9 · 9 U.S.C. § 1 · 29 U.S.C. § 185
How often courts cite this section
Court decisions citing this, by year.Markers show enactment, consequential amendments, and circuit splits over this section — watch for a citation surge after a change or a disagreement. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.
(a) In any of the following cases the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration—
(1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means;
(2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them;
(3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or
(4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.
(b) If an award is vacated and the time within which the agreement required the award to be made has not expired, the court may, in its discretion, direct a rehearing by the arbitrators.
(c) The United States district court for the district wherein an award was made that was issued pursuant to section 580 of title 5 may make an order vacating the award upon the application of a person, other than a party to the arbitration, who is adversely affected or aggrieved by the award, if the use of arbitration or the award is clearly inconsistent with the factors set forth in section 572 of title 5.
Editorial notes U.S. Code · Office of the Law Revision Counsel
Derivation
Act Feb. 12, 1925, ch. 213, §10, 43 Stat. 885.
Amendments
2002—Subsec. (a)(1) to (4). Pub. L. 107–169, §1(1)–(3), substituted “where” for “Where” and realigned margins in pars. (1) to (4), and substituted a semicolon for period at end in pars. (1) and (2) and “; or” for the period at end in par. (3).
Subsec. (a)(5). Pub. L. 107–169, §1(5), substituted “If an award” for “Where an award”, inserted a comma after “expired”, and redesignated par. (5) as subsec. (b).
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 107–169, §1(4), (5), redesignated subsec. (a)(5) as (b). Former subsec. (b) redesignated (c).
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 107–169, §1(4), redesignated subsec. (b) as (c).
1992—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 102–354 substituted “section 580” for “section 590” and “section 572” for “section 582”.
1990—Pub. L. 101–552 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), in introductory provisions substituted “In any” for “In either”, redesignated former subsecs. (a) to (e) as pars. (1) to (5), respectively, and added subsec. (b) which read as follows: “The United States district court for the district wherein an award was made that was issued pursuant to section 580 of title 5 may make an order vacating the award upon the application of a person, other than a party to the arbitration, who is adversely affected or aggrieved by the award, if the use of arbitration or the award is clearly inconsistent with the factors set forth in section 572 of title 5.”