The U.S. Supreme Court case Green Tree Financial Corp., NKA Conseco Finance Corp. v. Lynn W. Bazzle et al., 2002, revolved around the issue of whether an arbitration agreement that is silent on class arbitration can be interpreted to allow such a procedure by an arbitrator or if it should be decided by a court of law instead. The plaintiffs, who had entered into contracts containing mandatory arbitration clauses with Green Tree Financial Corporation for financing mobile homes, filed a class action lawsuit alleging violations of South Carolina's consumer protection laws and sought damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief in state court. The trial judge compelled arbitration but allowed it to proceed on behalf of a class despite the absence of explicit provision for this in the contract terms. In its decision, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the judgment from lower courts which held that arbitrators could decide whether contracts permitted class-wide proceedings when they were silent on this matter; stating that under Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), only courts have jurisdiction over these interpretative issues related to contractual agreements.

In the dissenting opinion of Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, argued that the arbitration clause in question did not explicitly permit class arbitration and therefore should be interpreted as prohibiting it. They contended that this interpretation was more consistent with traditional principles of contract law which require explicit consent for such a significant departure from standard bilateral arbitration procedures. The dissenters also disagreed with the majority's decision to remand the case back to state courts for further proceedings on whether or not class action is allowed under South Carolina law; they believed this issue had already been definitively settled in favor of Green Tree at an earlier stage in litigation.