The Supreme Court on Wednesday debated the judiciary’s role in arbitration, a timesaving alternative to lawsuits that often is used in the corporate world to settle business disputes.

In an environmental cleanup case, a lawyer for toy maker Mattel Inc. told the justices that courts have a limited role under the Federal Arbitration Act and that an arbitrator’s decision in the company’s favor should stand.

A lawyer for a property owner where Mattel once operated a factory in Beaverton, Ore., said the courts should step in and correct mistaken decisions by arbitrators.

At issue is whether parties in a dispute can agree in advance to expanded judicial review of arbitration rulings to correct errors of law.

In the fight between Hall Street Associates L.L.C. v. Mattel, a federal judge overturned a ruling by an arbitrator who said Mattel did not have to pay for environmental cleanup on Hall Street’s property.

Chief Justice John Roberts suggested expanded judicial review is appropriate, noting the two sides negotiated an agreement with court review as an option. But Roberts also questioned whether federal law allows the expanded review the agreement between Mattel and the property owner calls for.

Justices Anthony Kennedy and John Paul Stevens pointed to court review as a tool that can be used in business disputes to encourage the use of arbitration.

Many industries have an interest in the case, including the wireless communications industry, which has filed papers in support of an expanded role for the courts.

In the absence of court review, parties may decide they are unwilling to “bet the company” on arbitration, the wireless industry said. The result would be fewer disputes sent to arbitration and an added workload for overburdened courts.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested the property owner is seeking more latitude than the law allows for judicial review of arbitration cases.

Justice David Souter told the lawyer representing Hall Street Associates that “you want to get rid of” the section of the arbitration law that specifies limited circumstances under which courts can step in and overrule an arbitrator’s decision.

The lawyer, Carter Phillips, said one section of the law allows the parties to agree in advance to court review of issues such as the one in the Mattel case.

The property that Mattel leased from the property owner contains high levels of the industrial solvent TCE used to degrease metal parts.

The case is Hall Street v. Mattel, 06-989.