Today the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood (Jan. 10, 2012). At issue was whether a sentence in that act, at 15 U. S. C. §1679c(a), which says, "You have a right to sue a credit repair organization that violates the [Act]," preserves the right to sue in court. Because the Credit Repair Organizations Act is silent as to whether claims may be heard in an arbitration forum, the Court held, 8-1, that the arbitration agreement in question should be enforced according to its terms. Justice Ginsburg dissented strongly, and the short concurring opinion by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan stated that the case was a much closer call than the majority opinion suggests, noting good points raised in the dissenting opinion of Ginsburg. In particular there seems to be a strong disagreement about whether Congressional intent must be explicitly stated or may be inferred from a consistent set of statements suggesting a specific intent. Not much more to say about this, other than to note that its essentially a tautology that the majority gets to decide whether they see a clear Congressional intent or not. If they say there isn't an intent, then they are right by default.