The case of Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc. v. Bill Harbert Construction Company in 1999 revolved around the issue of venue transfer for arbitration appeals under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The dispute began when Cortez Byrd Chips, a Mississippi-based company, filed an arbitration claim against Alabama's Bill Harbert Construction Company in Mississippi. After losing the arbitration decision, Harbert appealed to a federal court in Alabama instead of Mississippi where it was originally arbitrated. This led to questions about whether or not such transfers were permissible under FAA rules. In its ruling, the Supreme Court held that while FAA does not explicitly provide for change-of-venue provisions like other federal laws do; it doesn't prohibit them either and therefore should be interpreted flexibly to allow such changes if they serve justice and convenience better than rigid adherence would do. The Court also noted that since both parties had substantial contacts with both states involved and neither party could claim unfair surprise or prejudice from having proceedings transferred between them; there was no compelling reason why this particular appeal couldn't be heard by an Alabama court just as effectively as by one in Mississippi.

In the dissenting opinion for Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc. v. Bill Harbert Construction Company, Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's interpretation of 9 U.S.C §10(a), arguing that it does not grant district courts authority to vacate or modify an arbitration award in a different district from where the award was made. He contended that this misinterpretation could lead to forum shopping and undermine predictability in litigation processes. Furthermore, he criticized the majority’s reliance on policy considerations rather than statutory text to justify their decision. In his view, such approach undermines legal certainty and allows judges too much discretion in interpreting laws based on their personal views about what would be fair or efficient.