Arbitration awards receive minimal judicial review, and efforts to expand it have largely failed.

Statutory grounds only. Corruption, fraud, evident partiality, misconduct in refusing to hear evidence or postpone, and exceeding powers. These are the exclusive grounds under the federal act, and parties may not contract for expanded judicial review.

Contractual expansion rejected. An agreement providing for review of errors of law is unenforceable in federal court, though a few states permit it under state arbitration acts, which is a reason to specify which act governs.

Appellate arbitration. The workable alternative — an agreement providing for review of the award by a second arbitral panel under provider rules, which delivers error correction within the arbitral framework.

Exceeding powers is the ground most often invoked and rarely successful. An arbitrator exceeds powers by deciding a matter not submitted, or by granting a remedy the agreement prohibits — not by getting the law or the contract wrong.

Evident partiality through undisclosed relationships, with a continuing disclosure obligation and a waiver where a party proceeds after learning.

Appeals from confirmation orders proceed as ordinary civil appeals, and the scope of review remains limited to the statutory grounds.