In the case of Nitro-Lift Technologies, L.L.C. v. Eddie Lee Howard et al., 2012, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Nitro-Lift Technologies and reaffirmed that federal law under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts state laws regarding arbitration agreements. The dispute began when two employees left Nitro-Lift to work for a competitor, violating their non-compete agreements which included an arbitration clause. When Nitro-Lift sought enforcement through arbitration as per agreement terms, the employees sued in Oklahoma State court arguing that non-compete clauses were unenforceable under state law. The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed with them stating such contracts violated state public policy and disregarded the arbitration clause completely. However, on appeal by Nitro-lift technologies to US supreme court it was held that this decision directly contradicted precedent set by previous cases like Buckeye Check Cashing Inc v Cardegna where it was established only arbitrator can decide validity of contract containing an arbitration clause not courts unless specifically challenged on grounds applicable to any contract. The ruling emphasized supremacy of FAA over conflicting state rules or interpretations thereby reinforcing importance & enforceability of private contractual arrangements including those mandating resolution via alternative dispute mechanisms like Arbitration.

In the case of Nitro-Lift Technologies, L.L.C. v. Eddie Lee Howard et al., there was no formal dissenting opinion recorded as the Supreme Court's decision was per curiam, meaning it was a collective decision made by the court and not attributed to any individual justice. However, in their unanimous ruling, they strongly criticized Oklahoma Supreme Court for ignoring federal law established by previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings on arbitration agreements' enforceability under Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The state court had ruled that non-competition agreements in two employees' contracts were null and void under Oklahoma law but this judgment overstepped its authority because questions regarding contract validity are decided by an arbitrator once a contract is deemed valid under FAA rules.