In a recent answer on SE @ _ohwilleke writes:
that the case law does make clear that the standard to apply the arbitration clause is relatively modest especially where one party has signed the agreement and another is a direct contractual successor to a signatory party
Courts tend to err very generously on the side of enforcing arbitration agreements which there is a plausible connection of contactual ties to the original agreement signed by both sides.
Does the policy of erring on the side of arbitration remain in effect after the recent ruling of the U.S Supreme Court which (seemingly) put arbitration agreements on "equal footing" with other contractual obligations?
In Morgan v. Sundance Inc SCOTUS ruled:
The federal policy is about treating arbitration contracts like all others, not about fostering arbitration.
An article by foley.com summarizes the ruling as follows:
Supreme Court Reiterates that Arbitration Contracts Should Be Evaluated on Equal Footing as Any Other Contract, and Courts Cannot Create Special Arbitration Rules
Does the new policy differ based on whether we know the two parties entered in an agreement to arbitrate at some point vs. when the parties dispute the formation of an arbitration agreement in the first place?
Are there any instances where the courts have favored arbitration (especially in NJ), after the U.S Supreme Court ruling?