By CHRISTOPHER RUGABER
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - A majority of the Supreme Court's justices appeared to side against a daytime television judge Monday in a contract dispute.

The judge in question is Alex Ferrer, better known as TV's "Judge Alex." In 2005, Ferrer refused to pay an artists' manager, Arnold Preston, 12 percent of his earnings from the show, as allegedly called for in a contract the two signed in 2002.

At issue is whether the case should be resolved in arbitration, as Preston says the contract stipulates, or whether a California state agency can first pass judgment on the legality of the contract, as Ferrer wants. The larger legal issue is whether federal arbitration law pre-empts California's regulation of talent agents.

Most justices seemed to side with Preston.

"I used to teach contract law," Hon. Antonin Scalia said. "And I am sure that when you say you'll arbitrate, it means you won't litigate."

Ferrer was in the audience for the oral argument, which he said was his first trip to the Supreme Court.

Speaking to reporters afterward, Ferrer declined to forecast the outcome and acknowledged that the justices turned up the heat on his lawyer during questioning.

"Sometimes you get a cold bench, sometimes you get a hot bench," he said.

Ferrer was a state court judge in Florida before trading the crimes of Miami-Dade County for the dramas of "Deli Defamation," "Pool Shark Blues" and "Mover's Smash Up," to name just a few emotionally charged episodes on his docket.

"Judge Alex" is syndicated to 185 markets by a unit of Twentieth Century Fox, a division of News Corp.

Some of the "he said-he said" aspects of the case would be right at home on daytime court TV. Ferrer argues that the contract is invalid because Preston isn't a licensed talent agent and his contracts aren't vetted by a state agency, as California law requires.

After Preston initiated arbitration, Ferrer sought to have the contract invalidated by the California labor commissioner.

Preston says that he is a manager, a different profession than a talent agent under California law, and therefore doesn't need a license.

G. Eric Brunstad, Ferrer's lawyer, argued that a ruling by the labor commissioner would only delay, rather than replace, arbitration. The commissioner usually takes about eight months to rule, he said.

If the commissioner said the contract is valid, then it could be arbitrated, Brunstad said.

But the justices questioned whether the delay, which could be extended if either party appealed a ruling to California court, would take too long.

A postponement "virtually destroys the value of arbitration," Hon. David Souter said. "They don't want to go to arbitration eight to 12 months later, they want to go now."

The Chamber of Commerce and CTIA, a trade association representing the wireless industry, have filed briefs in support of Preston. They oppose state courts interfering with arbitration, which they consider a faster and cheaper alternative to litigation.

Several justices also questioned some of Brunstad's assertions in his court filings, including his statement that it was "undisputed" that Preston acted as an "unlicensed talent agent." Hon. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and others noted that Preston has disputed that claim. Brunstad admitted that some aspects of his brief should have been clarified.

As a result of that exchange, Hon. Anthony Kennedy asked, "Shouldn't we view with some skepticism what you tell us?"

Despite the tough reception his case received, Ferrer still thinks the high court should share the airwaves with him.

"I always thought that courts should be open to the cameras, because they're open to the public," he said.

Ferrer might want to hold off on setting his DVR. About a decade ago, Souter famously said that cameras would be allowed in the Supreme Court "over my dead body."