The U.S. Supreme Court case Karen Howsam, etc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 2002 revolved around the interpretation of arbitration rules in a dispute between an investor and her brokerage firm. The plaintiff, Karen Howsam had invested with Dean Witter Reynolds and later accused them of deceptive practices leading to significant financial losses for her. She sought redress through arbitration as stipulated by their agreement but argued that the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) rule imposing a six-year limit on the matters eligible for arbitration should be decided by courts rather than arbitrators due to its nature as a "gateway" issue related to whether parties have agreed to arbitrate at all. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this view and ruled unanimously in favor of Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., stating that such procedural questions which grow out of disputes and bear on its final disposition are presumptively not for judges but for arbitrators themselves to decide.

In the case of Karen Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., there was no dissenting opinion recorded by any justice in the Supreme Court. The court unanimously ruled that an arbitrator, not a federal judge, should decide whether a dispute falls within a binding arbitration agreement's time limit provision. This decision was based on their interpretation of well-established principles concerning the role of courts versus arbitrators in resolving disputes about the applicability of arbitration agreements to particular types of controversies.