Whether United States courts should review de novo an arbitrator's conclusions on issues of law or mixed questions of law and fact bearing on the ultimate question of whether United States public policy should prevent enforcement of an arbitral award

QUESTION PRESENTED The Panama Convention and the New York Convention authorize the courts of Contracting States to refuse enforcement of an arbitral award where enforcement would violate domestic public policy. There is confusion among the circuits about how United States courts should treat determinations of the arbitrators on issues that bear on this defense. Should United States courts review de novo an arbitrator’s conclusions on issues of law or mixed questions of law and fact bearing on the ultimate question of whether United States public policy should prevent enforcement of an arbitral award?