The American legal system is rooted in common law. Among US states, only Louisiana, a former French colony, uses a civil law system. Puerto Rico, a US territory and former Spanish colony, uses a hybrid common- and civil-law system.

US judicial proceedings are generally adversarial, with judges typically serving as neutral arbiters rather than both investigating and deciding cases. Parties in US courts generally engage in extensive pre-trial activities, and most cases are resolved, either through settlement or by court decision, before trial. US courts provide for discovery, including, in many cases, allowing parties to compel others to attend depositions.

If a case proceeds to trial, parties typically file numerous pre-trial motions to determine what evidence can be presented, which witnesses are permitted to testify and what allegations or issues may be addressed during the trial.

At trial, parties generally offer oral argument and examine (question) witnesses. If one party presents a witness for its side, the other party generally has the right to cross-examine that witness.

The United States maintains a system of “separate sovereigns” in which the federal government and each state maintain their own laws and court systems. As such, there are separate federal and state courts throughout the United States, and the federal and state courts in each state have overlapping jurisdiction.

While many of the rules of practice are identical or very similar across the federal and state courts, each jurisdiction is entitled to make its own rules as long as they conform to constitutional standards.

Many aviation-related cases are “administrative” cases decided by agencies of the federal or state executive branches. In most cases, administrative decisions are ultimately appealable to a federal court, often a United States Court of Appeals.

The core legislation governing international arbitration in the United States is the Federal Arbitration Act (the “Arbitration Act”). Parts of the Arbitration Act implement the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”) and the Inter–American (“Panama”) Convention. The Arbitration Act applies to arbitration agreements involving interstate or foreign commerce and is enforced in both federal and state courts. It reflects a strong federal policy in favour of both domestic and international arbitration.

The United States has not adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”). While the Arbitration Act differs structurally from the Model Law, US courts generally apply principles broadly consistent with international arbitration norms, including party autonomy, limited judicial intervention, and strong enforcement of arbitration agreements and awards. Unlike the Model Law, the Arbitration Act does not provide a comprehensive statutory framework governing arbitral procedure, leaving many procedural matters to party agreement and incorporated institutional rules.

International arbitration plays a significant role in resolving US aviation disputes. Arbitration is most prominent in commercial and transactional aviation disputes, reflecting the industry’s international nature and the technical complexity of aviation assets. By contrast, aviation tort claims and passenger disputes are generally litigated in court and are rarely subject to arbitration. A key reason aviation parties favour arbitration is the ability to select arbitrators with aviation–specific expertise, including familiarity with aviation regulations and industry practice.

US courts generally do not mandate arbitration unless the parties agree to arbitration by contract. However, where parties have agreed to binding arbitration, US courts usually enforce such clauses, in part because the Arbitration Act generally requires US courts – federal and state – to enforce arbitration agreements subject to federal law.

Whether a particular court has jurisdiction to hear a case is sometimes the subject of extensive dispute. These disputes typically concern where a case may be heard (geographically) or which court (federal or state) may decide it. Aviation disputes often involve both questions.

Personal Jurisdiction

A threshold question is whether a particular US court has jurisdiction over the defendant(s) regardless of the case’s subject matter. At a minimum, to establish personal jurisdiction, the defendant must have sufficient ties, or “minimum contacts”, with the relevant jurisdiction. Such minimum contacts may involve business deals in or with the court’s geographic area, even if the defendant has not set foot in the jurisdiction itself.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

A second question is whether the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case – that is, “subject-matter jurisdiction”. Generally, within their state boundaries, state courts have broader subject-matter jurisdiction than federal courts. State courts may usually consider cases involving federal or state law. By contrast, federal courts are usually limited to hearing cases in which the plaintiff’s claim raises questions of federal law, or the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) are from separate states or countries and the value of the dispute exceeds a certain threshold.

The statute of limitations for an aviation-related dispute in the United States varies depending on the type of dispute and whether it arises in federal or state court or as an administrative proceeding.

Tort Claims Against International Air Carriers

The US adheres to the Montreal Convention, which sets a two-year statute of limitations for personal-injury and wrongful-death claims against an air carrier when the claim involves international air travel.

State Law Governs Many Cases

Claims involving US domestic air travel and general-aviation aircraft, including personal injury and contract claims, are commonly subject to state law and state statutes of limitations. These limitations vary widely by state.

Lawsuits Against the Federal Government

For claims (other than contract disputes) against the US government, the statute of limitations is usually six years. However, before filing suit, claimants must also submit the claim in writing to the appropriate federal agency within two years after it “accrues” and then file suit within six months after the agency issues a final denial of the claim.

Deadline to Appeal Administrative Decisions

In most (but not all) cases, a party only has 60 days to appeal a final administrative decision of the FAA or the US Department of Transportation (DOT) to a federal court. There are various exceptions and alternative deadlines.

Tolling

Various circumstances can delay, or “toll”, the statute of limitations. For example, in many US jurisdictions, when a defendant conceals the harm it has caused the plaintiff, the limitations period will not begin to run until the plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the injury.

Court Actions

Typically, a plaintiff does not need to engage in pre-suit conduct before initiating a lawsuit. However, to bring a claim against a government defendant, federal or state law may require the plaintiff to submit a claim directly to the relevant government agency within a certain period after the events giving rise to the claim. In certain cases, a plaintiff must provide the same sort of advance claim to a government contractor.

Administrative Complaints

For administrative complaints, such as those filed with the FAA, a complainant will often be required to file a claim against the defendant in advance and to try to resolve the dispute informally. For example, to bring certain complaints against a US airport operator to the FAA, the complainant must first make a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute directly with the operator. Parties making administrative claims or complaints should carefully review the applicable rules of procedure.

Complaint

In US courts, a plaintiff initiates a lawsuit by filing a complaint and properly serving it on the defendant. Federal rules typically require the plaintiff’s complaint to contain a “short and plain statement” of the case; many states have similar requirements.

Pleading Standard

A federal complaint must allege facts that make it at least “plausible”, not just conceivable, that the defendant violated the law or breached a contract. When a complaint merely includes “bare bones” legal conclusions without supporting factual allegations, the court will usually grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Federal courts require greater specificity for complaints alleging fraud.

In practice, the length of a complaint and the volume of accompanying exhibits will depend on the complexity of the case. A simple complaint regarding property damage may run only a few pages, while a complex commercial dispute could yield a complaint exceeding 100 pages.

Amending Complaints

Federal courts give plaintiffs the right to amend their complaints once within a certain time period after filing the complaint or after the defendant files its response. Otherwise, a plaintiff may only amend its complaint with the permission of the defendant or the court. If a court dismisses a complaint, it will typically allow the plaintiff to file a new or amended complaint unless the court determines that such a new or amended complaint would be “futile”, generally because it determines the plaintiff lacks a viable legal claim.

The following describes the process for serving defendants in US federal courts. Each state court system has its own service rules, some of which differ from federal procedure.

The Summons

A federal plaintiff must prepare a summons notifying the defendant of the lawsuit and where and when the defendant must defend it. The plaintiff presents the summons to the court clerk, who must sign it before the plaintiff may serve the defendant. Then, using a third-party service, the plaintiff must serve each defendant with a summons and a copy of the complaint.

Waiver of Service

To avoid unnecessary service expenses, federal courts permit plaintiffs to ask defendants to waive formal service. If a US plaintiff seeks a waiver from a US-located defendant but the defendant fails to waive service, the court must order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s service costs.

Domestic and International Service

When serving a US-located defendant, a plaintiff may usually follow the rules of the state where the defendant is located for serving process. When serving a defendant located abroad, plaintiffs are generally bound to the protocols of any applicable international agreements. The United States is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents (the “Hague Convention”) and to the Inter-American Service Convention, the latter of which governs service between several nations in the Americas. Where no international agreement governs, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) list options for serving a defendant located outside the United States.

Serving Government Defendants

The FRCP provides separate procedures for serving various categories of US and foreign governments.

Default

A defendant’s failure to respond to a properly served (or waived) summons regularly results in a default judgment for the plaintiff.

Admission to US Courts

Generally

All federal courts require attorneys to apply for admission to practice in the court. Each federal district (trial) court may set its own admissions standards for attorneys. About two thirds of federal district courts require attorneys to be licensed in the court’s home state (or US territory), while most other federal district courts admit attorneys licensed in any state or territory.

To practise in a federal appellate court, an attorney must be admitted to a state or federal court.

Pro hac vice admission

Every state permits an attorney licensed in another state to apply to practice in its courts “pro hac vice” (for a particular case), but each state has its own pro hac vice rules and usually requires the out-of-state lawyer to partner with an in-state attorney, or “local counsel”.

Foreign counsel

To practise in the United States, any lawyer must pass the bar examination of at least one US state (or territory) and be admitted to that state’s bar. Each state has its own bar-admission requirements. Certain states accept foreign legal credentials, but most require a foreign applicant to earn a degree from a US law school to sit for their bar exam.

Privilege and confidentiality

US courts recognise the attorney-client privilege and the attorney-work-product doctrine.

Attorney-client privilege

This generally means that the contents of private attorney-client communications may not be used in legal proceedings. The client may waive this privilege.

Attorney work product

The materials a lawyer prepares while representing a client are also generally privileged. To waive the privilege, both the client and the attorney must agree.

Generally, communications between a client and its in-house counsel benefit from these privileges as long as the counsel is acting in its role as an attorney for the client. There are important nuances parties should consider.

US courts follow the “American Rule”, which provides that, with exceptions, each party to a lawsuit is responsible for its own legal fees and court costs, regardless of which side wins.

However, parties can contract around the American Rule and instead allocate potential legal costs in other ways. US courts typically enforce such “fee-shifting” provisions.

A court may order a party to pay the other side’s fees as a sanction for improper or unreasonable conduct, such as forcing the other party to respond to a frivolous complaint or abusive or excessive procedural motions.

In the United States, relatively few lawsuits go to trial; most are settled before trial or decided by the court on pretrial motions, including motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment.

Motions to Dismiss

A defendant may move to dismiss a complaint on several grounds, including by asserting the court lacks jurisdiction or that the complaint’s allegations, even if true, do not provide a legal basis for the court to grant relief to the plaintiff.

Motions for Summary Judgment

Either side may ask the court to decide the case on summary judgment, without a trial, on the grounds that there are no credible facts that could allow a reasonable fact-finder at trial to rule for the other side. Courts often grant partial summary judgment, deciding certain issues but leaving others for trial.

Other Pretrial Motions

During or before the trial, each party may file various motions regarding the trial schedule and procedure, the appropriate scope of the trial, and what evidence may be presented.

Application to Aviation-Related Cases

Federal law strictly limits states’ ability to regulate the prices, routes, or services of interstate air carriers. Therefore, federal and state courts often dismiss passenger lawsuits against air carriers that are based on state contract or consumer law. Because many aviation business disputes turn on contract interpretation rather than factual disputes, US courts often decide such cases through motions to dismiss or on summary judgment. Lease, insurance, and indemnity disputes are often resolved on these motions.

Types of Injunctions

In civil cases, US federal courts can issue three types of injunctions: temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and permanent injunctions.

Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs)

TROs are emergency injunctions issued to prevent “irreparable”, imminent harm before the court and the parties have adequate time to consider whether a longer preliminary injunction (discussed below) is appropriate. In urgent situations, a court may issue a TRO without notifying the other side in advance.

Preliminary Injunctions

These are temporary injunctions, typically issued early in a case, that remain in effect until final judgment. Preliminary injunctions exist to preserve the status quo while the case proceeds.

Permanent Injunctions

These are issued as part of the court’s final judgment. To obtain a permanent injunction, the plaintiff must win the case and also show that a monetary award would not be sufficient to compensate the plaintiff for the harm.

Prohibitory Versus Mandatory Injunctions

An injunction may either prohibit a party from taking a certain action, such as moving an aircraft out of the court’s jurisdiction, or require (mandate) the party to take an action, such as transferring property to another party or the court.

Powers and Enforcement

Federal courts have broad authority to tailor injunctions to the circumstances of a case. A court may freeze a party’s assets, order a party to deliver property to the other party, or require a government agency to issue or withdraw an order. Courts may also issue “anti-suit” injunctions, which prevent a party from filing a parallel case on the same issue in another jurisdiction.

The US courts’ ability to freeze assets is limited, especially when the assets are held abroad. However, a court can generally extend an injunction to non-parties who act “in concert” with the party subject to the order, though federal courts disagree on whether this power applies to foreign non-parties.

US courts sometimes hold parties in “civil contempt” and fine them for unintentionally violating an injunction. A wilful violation may be prosecuted as criminal contempt, a crime that can result in fines or imprisonment.

In federal court, unless the court quickly dismisses the case, each party in a civil case typically has a right to require the other(s) to answer written questions (interrogatories), admit or deny various allegations, and turn over relevant documents. In addition, each party may seek to question (depose) witnesses under oath.

Federal courts typically expect the parties to handle discovery themselves. Federal judges can and regularly do resolve discovery disputes. However, courts expect the parties to make good-faith efforts to resolve those disputes among themselves first, and they may sanction a party for failing to do so or for engaging in abusive discovery practices.

Federal Court Trials

General trial format

Because there are no specialised aviation courts in the federal system, aviation trials follow the same rules as other civil trials. Most civil cases are resolved before trial through settlement, dismissal, or summary judgment. When a case does go to trial, parties often submit written briefs to clarify the issues in dispute, include or exclude evidence, seek favourable trial procedures, or advise the court how to instruct the jury (if any) on the relevant law. However, the core of a trial is oral argument and witness testimony.

Right to a jury

In a federal trial, a party may generally demand trial by jury as long as the plaintiff seeks monetary damages above a certain threshold. However, the party seeking a jury must do so in writing by a certain deadline. In limited circumstances, Congress has also authorised jury trials in cases against the federal government.

Evidence

The Federal Rules of Evidence are complex, and disputes over admissibility are common. In many aviation disputes, parties frequently rely on expert witnesses. Experts typically submit detailed written reports and then testify about their findings at trial. It is common for one side to challenge the other’s experts, and federal courts must assess whether an expert’s proposed testimony meets certain criteria before permitting the expert to testify.

Public access

Federal trials and court records are generally open and accessible to the public. However, courts may redact personal or confidential information from filings and place certain materials “under seal” to prevent disclosure. Some proceedings, including some pretrial conferences between the judge and the parties, are closed to the public.

Administrative hearings

Some federal agencies, including the FAA, hold trial-like hearings to resolve certain kinds of administrative disputes, such as whether to revoke a pilot’s licence. These hearings are conducted by administrative law judges, or “ALJs”, rather than juries. The procedural rules for these hearings vary by agency and can differ significantly from those used in federal court.

Parties frequently resolve disputes through settlement agreements, which may occur before any lawsuit is commenced or at any time up to a final decision or even the end of an appeal.

Types of Settlements

Parties can settle “out of court” by agreeing to avoid or end litigation. In those cases, the court is not involved in, and does not approve, the settlement. Alternatively, parties may submit their settlement agreement to the court for ratification as a consent decree. If the court agrees, the consent decree becomes a binding court order.

Enforcement

When parties enter into an out-of-court settlement without court approval, a party will usually need to initiate a new breach-of-contract lawsuit to enforce the agreement, though there are limited circumstances in which a court hearing the parties’ original dispute may enforce the settlement. By contrast, when a party violates a consent decree, the other may petition the court to hold the non-compliant party in contempt, without the need for a new lawsuit.

Confidentiality

Parties can generally agree, as part of the settlement, to keep the out-of-court settlement’s terms or existence confidential. However, if the parties file the agreement with the court or seek a consent decree, the settlement agreement typically becomes public record unless the court accepts it “under seal”, something federal courts typically disfavour.

Setting Aside Settlements

Typically, a court may only set aside a settlement agreement for the same reasons it could set aside a contract generally. Those include instances in which a party uses fraud or coercion to induce the other to enter the agreement, or, in limited circumstances, where one party misunderstands a core element of the agreement and the other knowingly takes advantage of the mistake.

Under US law, money damages are usually the default remedy for a breach of contract or a tort (a civil wrong other than a breach of contract). However, as discussed in 2.9 Injunctive Relief, a plaintiff may seek a permanent injunction against the defendant in lieu of, or in addition to, damages.

Types of Damages

There are several kinds of damages plaintiffs may seek in federal or state court, as follows.

• Actual, or “compensatory”, damages compensate the plaintiff for its direct losses caused by the defendant.
• Consequential damages are intended to reflect the indirect but reasonably foreseeable downstream harms the plaintiff suffers due to the defendant’s conduct. Plaintiffs often seek consequential damages for the loss of profits they suffer when a defendant’s conduct impedes their business operations or ability to work.
• Plaintiffs may also seek punitive damages against a defendant. In federal court, punitive damages are generally limited to cases in which the defendant acted maliciously or with reckless indifference. Courts are often reluctant to grant punitive damages.

Caps on Damages

In most cases, federal and state law does not cap damages. However, parties may typically agree to limit their damages or waive certain types of damage claims through contract. With respect to aviation, the United States is party to international agreements, including the Montreal Convention and the Warsaw Convention, that cap damages for covered personal injuries and property damage suffered during international air travel. Federal regulation caps air carriers’ liability for baggage on wholly domestic air carriage, though airlines may set lower liability limits in their contracts of carriage.

Claims Against the Government

Even where the federal government waives its immunity from suit, plaintiffs are generally limited to seeking compensatory, not consequential or punitive damages, against the government.

Appeals in Federal Courts

Final decisions of a US district (trial) court are typically appealable to one of 13 federal appeals courts, commonly referred to as “circuit courts”. Each circuit court oversees certain district courts. Circuit courts do not hear testimony or have juries.

Scope of Review

Federal circuit courts typically consider whether the district court correctly interpreted, or “applied”, the relevant law or contract. Circuit courts consider a district court’s legal rulings “de novo”, without deferring to how the district court decided the question. By contrast, circuit courts generally defer to a district court’s findings of fact, unless the district court was clearly wrong. Circuit courts typically refuse to consider arguments a party failed to present to the district court.

Deadlines and Procedures

There are strict deadlines for commencing an appeal. In a federal civil case, a party typically must file a short form, a notice of appeal, within 30 days after the district court’s final judgment. That deadline is 60 days if one of the parties is the federal government. Federal courts usually cannot extend these deadlines.

Arguments

Each party will have the opportunity to file one or more written arguments with the circuit court. Then, the court may schedule oral argument if it feels such an argument would help it decide the case.

Petitions for Review

A party may petition a circuit court to review the legality of a finalfederal action or order. There are strict deadlines for filing such petitions. As with an appeal, the circuit court will give each side (the petitioner and the federal agency) the opportunity to file briefs, and the court may then choose to schedule oral argument.

Enforcement of arbitration agreements is governed primarily by the Arbitration Act, which reflects a long-standing federal policy favouring arbitration. As a result, arbitration clauses in aviation agreements are generally upheld as long as they satisfy the general requirements for contractual validity.

Certain subject matters remain non–arbitrable. Criminal proceedings, public regulatory enforcement actions by government agencies, and claims that Congress has explicitly rendered non–arbitrable fall outside the scope of arbitration. Among other things, Congress has provided that “contracts of employment” by transportation workers are not generally subject to binding arbitration, though courts have read that exemption narrowly.

Tort claims, including personal injury or wrongful death claims, may be subject to arbitration if the parties have an arbitration agreement, though courts may be more reluctant to compel arbitration for such claims.

Arbitration Authority

US law recognises a qualified form of the competence–competence principle, under which an arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including challenges to the existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement.

However, courts generally retain jurisdiction to decide whether parties agreed to arbitrate at all; arbitrators may decide jurisdictional questions only if the parties have clearly and unmistakably delegated that authority to the tribunal, such as by incorporating the rules of certain arbitral associations into their agreements.

Challenges to Arbitration Authority

A party may challenge arbitrators’ authority at several stages, depending on the nature of the challenge, as outlined below.

• At the outset, a party may oppose a motion to a court to compel arbitration on the ground that no arbitration agreement exists or the dispute falls outside its scope.
• After the tribunal is constituted, if the parties have granted jurisdictional authority to the arbitrators, courts generally require the parties to raise any challenges to arbitral jurisdiction before the arbitrators in the first instance.
• After an award is issued, a party may challenge the arbitrators’ jurisdiction as a basis for vacating the award, but courts are highly deferential to the arbitrators.

US courts take a strongly deferential approach toward arbitral jurisdiction once arbitration is underway and tend to enforce arbitral awards unless they are clearly unlawful.

Binding Non-Signatories

US law permits arbitral tribunals (and courts) to bind non–signatories to arbitration agreements under established legal doctrines, even though arbitration is fundamentally consensual. There is no categorical distinction between domestic and foreign entities.

Whether an arbitration must be kept confidential generally depends on the arbitration rules the parties agree to use or on whether the agreement contains a confidentiality clause. Most aviation arbitrations are conducted under institutional rules, such as those of the AAA, JAMS, ICA, or the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), which typically impose confidentiality obligations. However, the scope of party confidentiality varies by institution.

Whether arbitration materials may be relied upon in later proceedings depends on the terms of the confidentiality agreement and the purpose for which disclosure is sought. US courts generally permit the use of such materials when they are relevant and disclosure is reasonably necessary.

Arbitral tribunals seated in the United States are empowered to grant preliminary and interim relief in aviation disputes, subject to the parties’ arbitration agreement and the Arbitration Act. US courts have long recognised that arbitrators possess the authority to issue provisional relief necessary to preserve the integrity of the arbitration process and ensure that any final award is not ineffectual.

In practice, the scope of arbitral authority is most often defined by the arbitration rules selected by the parties. These may include orders maintaining the status quo, preserving assets, preventing transfers of property, requiring security for claims or costs, preserving evidence, or granting interim injunctive relief. Interim measures issued by arbitral tribunals are binding on the parties, although tribunals lack independent coercive power to enforce compliance. Many arbitration rules also provide for emergency arbitrator procedures, allowing parties to seek urgent interim relief before the full tribunal is constituted.

US courts may grant interim relief in support of arbitration, including TROs and preliminary injunctions. US courts may also grant interim relief to aid arbitrations seated outside the United States through the courts’ inherent equitable powers and the pro–enforcement framework of the New York Convention.

US law permits both courts and arbitral tribunals to order security for costs in arbitration, though the standards differ depending on whether the relief is sought from a court or an arbitral tribunal.

Arbitrators’ authority to order security generally derives from the parties’ arbitration agreement or the institutional rules governing the arbitration. Many widely used arbitration rules empower tribunals to order binding interim or conservatory measures.

US arbitral tribunals approach security for costs cautiously and do not apply a uniform statutory standard. In practice, tribunals may consider factors such as the claimant’s ability to satisfy a potential adverse costs award, evidence of bad faith or abusive conduct, the procedural posture of the case, and whether an order would unduly impair access to arbitration.

US courts may also order security for costs in connection with arbitration, but such relief is not routine. Courts’ authority to order security is typically grounded in the courts’ inherent powers, applicable federal or state procedural rules, or specific statutory provisions. Courts typically require a showing of exceptional circumstances, such as insolvency, or a demonstrated risk that an award would be unenforceable.

Most procedural aspects of arbitration are determined by party agreement and the institutional rules incorporated into the arbitration clause.

US arbitration procedure involving interstate or foreign commerce (a concept US courts broadly construe) is further subject to the Arbitration Act, which usually requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements, permits courts to compel arbitration, and regulates confirmation, vacatur, and modification of awards. The Arbitration Act gives parties and arbitrators broad discretion to set their own procedures.

Arbitration procedure is commonly governed by institutional rules, such as those of the AAA, JAMS, ICA, or LCIA. In the absence of institutional rules, arbitrators have broad discretion to manage procedure as they consider appropriate and efficient.

In both international or domestic arbitration seated in the US, the rules governing when an advocate may represent a party are significantly more flexible than the rules governing representation in court. The Arbitration Act does not impose any restrictions on who may act as legal counsel in arbitration proceedings. Arbitral tribunals generally permit parties to be represented by any person of their choosing, subject to applicable institutional rules.

Accordingly, foreign-qualified lawyers may often represent parties in US arbitration proceedings even if they are not admitted to any US bar. This practice is common in international aviation arbitrations involving cross–border leasing, manufacturing, finance, or insurance disputes.

In US arbitrations, parties may recover interest and legal costs to the extent authorised by the arbitration agreement, the applicable arbitration rules, or the governing substantive law. The Arbitration Act does not prescribe rules on interest or costs, leaving these issues largely to arbitral discretion and party agreement.

Interest is commonly awarded in US arbitrations. Tribunals may grant pre-award interest, post-award interest, or both, where permitted by the governing substantive law or contract. The general approach is compensatory rather than punitive, with interest intended to make the prevailing party whole.

Each party typically bears its own attorneys’ fees unless a fee-shifting provision exists in the arbitration agreement. However, arbitrators often have discretion under institutional rules to allocate arbitration costs, such as arbitrator fees and administrative expenses. In practice, tribunals may order a disproportionate allocation of costs against the unsuccessful party.

Evidentiary procedures in US arbitrations are generally less formal and more flexible than discovery and evidentiary procedures in federal (and many state) courts, and most procedural matters are subject to the parties’ agreement and arbitral rules.

Pleadings

Arbitrations typically require streamlined written pleadings, such as statements of claim and defence, rather than the fact pleading required in US court litigation. Parties are generally not required to attach extensive evidentiary support at the outset.

Discovery Requests

There is no default discovery protocol in US arbitration. Arbitrators often permit targeted document production where relevant and material to the outcome of the case, but broad discovery – such as interrogatories and requests for admission – is uncommon in the absence of party agreement.

Privilege

Privilege is generally respected in arbitration to the same extent as in US court proceedings.

Presentation of Evidence

Evidence at the hearing stage is typically presented through written witness statements and expert reports submitted in advance, followed by oral testimony and cross-examination at the hearing. Arbitrators have broad discretion over the conduct of hearings, including the scope and manner of cross-examination. While adversarial examination is common, proceedings are typically more controlled and time-limited than court trials.

Formal rules of evidence do not apply in arbitration unless the parties agree otherwise. Arbitrators may admit and weigh evidence as they deem appropriate, focusing on relevance and reliability rather than formal admissibility standards. Arbitrators may order parties to produce documents and testify, and they may issue subpoenas for witness attendance or document production at a hearing. However, arbitrators generally lack the authority to compel pre-hearing discovery from non-parties.

Validity

Under the Arbitration Act, a US-seated arbitral tribunal’s award must resolve the issues submitted to arbitration, be issued in writing, and reflect a final determination of the parties’ dispute. The Arbitration Act does not specify how the award must be structured or reasoned.

Timing

The parties’ arbitration agreement or the applicable arbitration rules typically provide a deadline for the arbitrators to issue an award.

Remedies

US arbitral tribunals generally have broad discretion to grant remedies, subject to the applicable arbitration agreement and governing substantive law. Tribunals may award compensatory damages, declaratory relief, specific performance, rectification, and other forms of injunctive relief. Punitive damages may also be awarded unless expressly prohibited by the arbitration agreement or the governing substantive law.

In the United States, arbitral awards in aviation disputes may be challenged only on narrow statutory grounds set out in the Arbitration Act. A party may seek to vacate or modify an award on grounds including arbitral corruption, fraud, bias, or misconduct; arbitrators exceeding their powers; or fundamental procedural unfairness, such as refusal to hear material evidence.

US courts will generally not revisit factual findings, legal determinations, or the tribunal’s interpretation of the relevant contract, even if they believe the arbitrators committed a serious error. Parties with disputes subject to the Arbitration Act may not contractually expand the scope of judicial review to permit de novo consideration of the merits.

Federal courts and plaintiffs have several means of identifying a defendant’s assets. The use of these options varies depending on whether the case has already reached final judgment.

Before Judgment

During litigation, plaintiffs typically use discovery to identify defendants’ assets, including interrogatories, depositions, document requests, and third-party subpoenas issued to banks and employers. Plaintiffs may also use generally available research sources to identify assets.

After Judgment

When a federal court renders judgment for a party, that party – the “judgment creditor” – may use similar discovery tools to identify the assets of the party owing the judgment (the “judgment debtor”). The court may also order the judgment debtor to appear to disclose its assets.

Freezing and Protecting Assets

Federal courts may only freeze a defendant’s assets before judgment in limited cases. Federal courts lack the inherent power to freeze assets before judgment when the defendant is sued only for money damages and the plaintiff lacks a security interest in those assets. However, if the federal court is located in a state that permits pre-judgment asset freezes, the court may usually do so. In many instances, federal courts may also order pre-judgment asset freezes to preserve the status quo when the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief. Certain federal statutes authorise pre-judgment freezes in limited cases.

Federal courts may also prohibit a defendant from transferring assets to other entities to impede their seizure to satisfy a judgment. If the court finds a defendant “fraudulently transferred” such assets, it may enjoin the recipients from further transferring or using them.

The enforcement of a judgment is typically governed by the laws of the state in which the court is located, even if the court is federal. Subject to certain exceptions, federal and state courts must generally enforce one another’s judgments as long as they have jurisdiction over the defendant and the judgment meets constitutional requirements.

Tools to Enforce Judgments

The tools for enforcing a judgment vary by state.

Money judgments

• Execution – in many states, when a court orders a judgment debtor to pay a judgment creditor (a “money judgment”), the court may order law enforcement to seize the debtor’s property to satisfy the judgment. This is known as “execution”.
• Garnishment – a court may also order a third party, typically the debtor’s employer, to pay money owed to the debtor to the creditor instead.
• Liens – in most states, a money judgment automatically gives the creditor a lien on the debtor’s real estate, but some states require the creditor to obtain a separate court order for such a lien.

Non-monetary judgments

• Contempt – a court may typically use its inherent contempt powers to compel a party to comply with a non-monetary (eg, injunctive) judgment.
• Sheriff’s enforcement – some states permit sheriffs to seize a judgment debtor’s property to enforce a court order for a debtor to turn property over to the judgment creditor.

Procedure for obtaining enforcement

• Application for a writ of execution – a judgment creditor may ask the court to issue a writ of execution ordering law enforcement to seize the debtor’s property to satisfy the judgment. In many states, the creditor files a short application for the writ with the court’s clerk. If the clerk deems the request valid, the clerk will issue the court a writ of execution.
• Out-of-state judgments – if a judgment creditor asks one state’s court to enforce another court’s judgment, the court may require the judgment creditor to file a legally “authenticated” copy of the judgment.
• Time limit – for money judgments, state law governs the statute of limitations for enforcing the judgment, and the limits vary widely by state. Federal law governs the statute of limitations for enforcing certain injunctions.

In general, the enforcement of a money judgment is generally governed by the law of the state where the court sits, the options for challenging a judgment may vary by state. Several common grounds are outlined below.

Jurisdiction

The judgment debtor may assert that the court that rendered the judgment or the court that is asked to enforce it lacks jurisdiction over the debtor. (Note, in some states, a court may enforce a judgment as long as the court has jurisdiction over some of the debtor’s assets.)

Appeal

A debtor may appeal a judgment. Trial courts will usually, though not always, withhold enforcement of a judgment pending appeal.

Statute of Limitations

A debtor may assert that the judgment creditor failed to enforce the judgment within the allowed timeframe.

Other Procedural Challenges

A debtor may assert the original judgment violated applicable constitutional or statutory requirements. For example, a debtor may assert the judgment was not properly issued or that it never received proper notice of the judgment.

No federal law or international treaty governs the US courts’ enforcement of foreign judgments. However, almost all US states enforce at least some types of foreign judgments, and federal courts often apply state law when enforcing them.

Enforceable Foreign Judgments

US courts typically enforce foreign money judgments and decisions (other than tax-related ones) by foreign administrative agencies. In addition, some (but not all) states choose to enforce foreign injunctions, declaratory judgments, and default judgments.

Procedures for Enforcement

The following broadly summarises how some states enforce foreign judgments, but procedures vary from state to state.

Seeking enforcement

Nearly all states follow either the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgment Recognition Act of 2005 or Section 482 of the Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law. Both generally permit a court to enforce a foreign money judgment, whether as a new proceeding or as part of an ongoing case.

New case versus expedited procedure

Certain states presume a foreign judgment is enforceable unless a party shows otherwise. In these states, a judgment creditor needs only to file the judgment and certain supporting documents with the clerk of the court. In other states, a party must file a new legal proceeding to enforce a foreign judgment.

Required documents

In addition to materials a creditor must file to enforce an out-of-state judgment, some states require the creditor to provide a certified English translation of a non-English judgment and an affidavit by an expert in the judgment country’s law certifying the judgment is final, conclusive, and enforceable, unless those facts are clear on the face of the judgment.

Burden of proof

Most states presume foreign money judgments are enforceable unless the judgment debtor proves otherwise. However, a minority of courts require the judgment creditor to demonstrate that the judgment meets the basic requirements for enforcement.

Generally, the grounds for challenging a domestic judgment also apply to foreign judgments, but US courts tend to recognise several additional grounds for challenging a foreign judgment.

Foreign Judgments That US Courts Often Decline to Enforce

Though state laws vary, US courts often decline to enforce the following foreign tax-related judgments, penal judgments, pre-judgment orders to seize or attach assets and default judgments.

Grounds for Challenging the Enforcement of a Foreign Judgment

In addition to the grounds for challenging the judgment of another state’s court (see 4.3 Challenging Domestic Judgment Enforcement), US courts often decline to challenge foreign judgments for the following reasons (though policies vary by state):

• type – the foreign judgment is not of a type that US courts usually enforce;
• jurisdiction – either the foreign or the US court lacks jurisdiction over the debtor;
• pending appeal – US courts may generally enforce foreign money judgments while a foreign appeal is pending, but a debtor may ask the US court to stay enforcement pending the appeal;
• unfair proceeding – the foreign proceeding (or foreign court system generally) lacked fundamental fairness and due process;
• lack of notice – the debtor did not receive proper notice of the foreign proceeding;
• non-final – the foreign judgment was not a final, conclusive judgment in its jurisdiction;
• conflict – the foreign judgment conflicts with a final, conclusive judgment of a US court or another foreign court;
• reciprocity – some US states do not recognise judgments of a court in a country that refuses to enforce the US state’s judgments;
• public policy – enforcing the foreign judgment would conflict with the fundamental public policy of the US court’s jurisdiction; and
• statute of limitations – the applicable time limit to enforce the judgment has expired.

The United States has a strong policy of enforcing arbitration agreements and awards, as codified in the Arbitration Act.

New York Convention

As discussed in 1.3 Arbitration Framework, the US is a party to the New York Convention, which generally requires each signatory to enforce arbitral awards made in other signatory countries. However, the US has applied two “reservations” to the convention:

• the reciprocity reservation states that the US will only apply the convention to arbitral awards from countries that have joined the convention; and
• the commercial convention limits the US application of the convention to arbitrations concerning commercial disputes.

Inter-American (Panama) Convention

As a party to the Panama Convention, the US enforces awards issued in commercial arbitrations in various Latin American countries.

Procedure to Enforce Arbitral Awards

For arbitration agreements subject to federal jurisdiction, a party files a petition to confirm the award in the appropriate federal district court (or, if specified by the parties, another court). Per the Arbitration Act, the petitioner must file the arbitration agreement, the award, evidence regarding the parties’ selection of the arbitrator, any documented extension of time to enforce the award, and any papers used to confirm, modify, or correct the award in a prior court proceeding.

For awards rendered under the New York Convention, the petitioner must also submit an authenticated or certified copy of the award, either the original or an authenticated copy of the arbitration agreement, and, if necessary, a certified English translation of those documents.

The petitioner must serve the petition for confirmation in accordance with applicable law.

Statute of Limitations

Under the Arbitration Act, a party has one year to petition to confirm an award by a US arbitral tribunal, subject to the act, and three years to seek confirmation of a foreign tribunal’s award. Several states permit longer deadlines for arbitrations under their own laws.

The Arbitration Act specifies several grounds for vacating an arbitral award.

Domestic Arbitrations

For domestic US arbitrations, the Arbitration Act gives a court with jurisdiction the power to vacate the award if:

• there is no binding, written arbitration agreement for the relevant subject matter;
• the arbitrator(s) exceeded their authority;
• the award was obtained by corruption or fraud;
• any arbitrator was partial or corrupt; and
• the arbitrator(s) wrongfully prejudiced the rights of a party.

The Arbitration Act also permits a court with jurisdiction to modify or correct a US arbitral award if:

• the arbitrator(s) materially miscalculated the award or materially mistook the subject of the award;
• the arbitrator(s) made an award not pertinent to the matter submitted to them; and
• the award is in a flawed form.

International/Foreign Arbitrations

The New York Convention and the Panama Convention each specify seven grounds for opposing the enforcement of an international arbitral award subject to them:

• the arbitration agreement was legally invalid or the parties were incapacitated;
• the debtor lacked notice of the arbitration or was denied the opportunity to argue its case;
• the award exceeded the matters submitted for arbitration;
• the arbitration panel’s composition conflicted with the requirements of the arbitration agreement;
• the award is not (yet) binding or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority;
• applicable law does not permit the matter to be settled by arbitration; and
• enforcing the award would violate public policy.

Exemptions

Congress has enacted several exclusions to the Arbitration Act, allowing parties to pursue litigation regardless of an existing arbitration agreement.

Appeals Under the Arbitration Act

A party to an award-enforcement proceeding may appeal the trial court’s decision.

Enforcement during foreign set-aside proceedings

US courts have sometimes enforced foreign arbitral awards even when the country of arbitration annulled the award. One federal circuit court has held that US courts may enforce awards annulled abroad, but it has cautioned that US judicial policy would usually weigh in favour of honouring annulments by the seat of the arbitral tribunal.

Sovereign immunity

Under the US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a foreign government that agrees to arbitration generally waives its sovereign immunity from award.

Deadline

Under the Arbitration Act, a party moving to vacate, modify, or correct an award has only three months to do so after the award is filed or delivered.

As discussed in 3.2 Jurisdiction, a US court will often defer to the arbitration panel to determine the scope of its own jurisdiction over the parties, though that deference is not absolute.

Over the past year, several US courts have addressed disputes between airlines and airports over an airport operator’s authority to regulate an airline’s use of its facilities.

In August 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that federal law prohibited the operator of a large suburban airport from requiring a public charter operator to operate flights out of the airport’s main terminal instead of from a fixed base operator. The US district court ruled in favour of the airport operator, but the circuit court reversed, holding that a federal law, the Airport Noise and Capacity Act, preempted the airport operator from requiring the move to the terminal.

Other cases involving airport and terminal access continue to proceed across the country, reflecting the challenges that may arise as an increasingly fragmented air-carrier industry seeks to serve increasingly busy airports. The cases also reflect the tension between local airport operators’ efforts to govern their airports – and, arguably, the operations of the airlines serving them – and efforts by Congress and DOT to ensure a consistent national framework of aviation regulation that promotes a competitive, largely free-market airline sector.