Quote from Misco, 484 U.S. 29 (1987) “We cautioned, however, that a court's refusal to enforce an arbitrator's interpretation of such contracts is limited to situations where the contract as interpreted would violate ‘some explicit public policy’ that is ‘well defined and dominant, and is to be ascertained by reference to the laws and legal precedents and not from general considerations of supposed public interests.’” (484 U.S. 29, 43)

Eastern Assoc. Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers Public policy regarding operating vehicles while using drugs does not forbid enforcement of an arbitration award (an agreement) reinstating (with severe conditions) a truck driver who was discharged for twice testing positive for marijuana Policies exist that –Prohibit persons who test positive for drug use from operating commercial motor vehicles –Encourage rehabilitation of such persons –Neither is “dominant” No public policy requiring the discharge of a truck driver who twice tests positive for drugs

Eastern Assoc. (concurrence) Scolds court for the following sentence, which he says is dictum: –“We agree, in principle, that courts’ authority to invoke the public policy exception is not limited solely to instances where the arbitration award itself violates positive law.” –What other instances are there? –Would restrict court review even more than main opinion.