In the early 20th century, the Supreme Court had a very narrow view towards the arbitration and often struck down the arbitration agreements as improperly ousting the courts of jurisdiction. For example, in the 1953 Wilko v. Swan decision, the Court refused to compel the arbitration under an agreement in a securities brokerage contract, finding that the arbitration would deprive the plaintiff of the legal protections afforded under the Securities Act.

The Court's view shifted in the 1980s and 1990s towards the strong enforcement of the arbitration. In its 1984 decision in Southland v. Keating, the Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act applied not just in federal courts but also in the state courts. This established that the federal arbitration law preempts any state laws restricting the arbitration agreements.

Likewise, in its 1967 Prima Paint v. Flood & Conklin and 1985 Mitsubishi v. Soler Chrysler Plymouth decisions, the Court enforced agreements to arbitrate federal statutory claims, finding no inherent conflict between arbitration and such claims. These decisions fueled the growing use of the arbitration clauses in the many consumer and employment contracts.

However, the Court's recent decisions reflect a very narrower scope for the arbitration agreements. In particular, the Court has also shown concerns around the class action waivers. In its 2011 AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion and 2013 Italian Colors Restaurant v. American Express Co. decisions, the Court upheld class action waivers under the terms of the Federal Arbitration Act.

But more recently in the 2015 DirecTV v. Imburgia decision, the Court refused to enforce a class action waiver that explicitly violated state law prohibitions. The Court found that the law represented a general contract defense that may invalidate an arbitration agreement.

Likewise, in the 2022, Viking River Cruises v. Moriana decision, the Court affirmed that the Federal Arbitration Act permits arbitration agreements to be invalidated by generally applicable state contract law defenses. However, it still maintained a high bar by requiring that the state law principle be truly generally applicable rather than aimed specifically at arbitration.

Overall, while the Supreme Court maintains a policy favoring arbitration agreements, its recent decisions show some limits, especially around class action waivers under certain state laws. The evolution continues as the Court balances the arbitration's advantages against the rights relinquished by plaintiffs through these agreements. The Court's view on the arbitration agreements and their boundaries will likely continue developing in many important ways with future decisions.