Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
No. 041264
_________________
2. Arbitration Provisions Any claim, dispute, or controversy . . . arising from or relating to this Agreement
. . . or the validity, enforceability, or scope of this Arbitration Provision or the entire Agreement (collectively
Claim), shall be resolved, upon the election of you or
us or said third-parties, by binding arbitration . . . .
This arbitration Agreement is made pursuant to a
transaction involving interstate commerce, and shall
be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9
U. S. C. Sections 116. The arbitrator shall apply applicable substantive law constraint [sic] with the FAA
and applicable statu[t]es of limitations and shall
honor claims of privilege recognized by law . . . .
Respondents brought this putative class action in Florida state court, alleging that Buckeye charged usurious
interest rates and that the Agreement violated various
Florida lending and consumer-protection laws, rendering
it criminal on its face. Buckeye moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, holding that a
court rather than an arbitrator should resolve a claim that
a contract is illegal and void ab initio. The District Court
of Appeal of Florida for the Fourth District reversed,
holding that because respondents did not challenge the
arbitration provision itself, but instead claimed that the
entire contract was void, the agreement to arbitrate was
enforceable, and the question of the contracts legality
should go to the arbitrator.
Respondents appealed, and the Florida Supreme Court
reversed, reasoning that to enforce an agreement to arbitrate in a contract challenged as unlawful could breathe
life into a contract that not only violates state law, but
also is criminal in nature . . . . 894 So. 2d 860, 862
(2005) (quoting Party Yards, Inc. v. Templeton, 751 So. 2d
121, 123 (Fla. App. 2000)). We granted certiorari. 545
U. S. ___ (2005).
II
A
To overcome judicial resistance to arbitration, Congress
enacted the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. 1
16. Section 2 embodies the national policy favoring arbitration and places arbitration agreements on equal footing
with all other contracts:
A written provision in . . . a contract . . . to settle by
arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of
such contract . . . or an agreement in writing to submit to arbitration an existing controversy arising out
of such a contract . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and
enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or
in equity for the revocation of any contract.
Challenges to the validity of arbitration agreements upon
such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation
of any contract can be divided into two types. One type
challenges specifically the validity of the agreement to
arbitrate. See, e.g., Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U. S.
1, 45 (1984) (challenging the agreement to arbitrate as
void under California law insofar as it purported to cover
claims brought under the state Franchise Investment
Law). The other challenges the contract as a whole, either
on a ground that directly affects the entire agreement
(e.g., the agreement was fraudulently induced), or on the
ground that the illegality of one of the contracts provisions renders the whole contract invalid.1 Respondents
1 The
Advent Intl Corp., 220 F. 3d 99 (CA3 2000); Sphere Drake Ins. Ltd. v.
All American Ins. Co., 256 F. 3d 587 (CA7 2001), and whether the
signor lacked the mental capacity to assent, Spahr v. Secco, 330 F. 3d
1266 (CA10 2003).
2 In pertinent part, 4 reads:
A party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of
another to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration may
petition any United States district court [with jurisdiction] . . . for an
order directing that such arbitration proceed in a manner provided for
in such agreement . . . . [U]pon being satisfied that the making of the
agreement for arbitration or the failure to comply therewith is not in
issue, the court shall make an order directing the parties to proceed to
arbitration in accordance with the terms of the agreement . . . .
3 Our
neither Prima Paint nor Southland lends support to respondents reading; as we have discussed, neither case
turned on whether the challenge at issue would render the
contract voidable or void.
*
*
*
It is true, as respondents assert, that the Prima Paint
rule permits a court to enforce an arbitration agreement in
a contract that the arbitrator later finds to be void. But it
is equally true that respondents approach permits a court
to deny effect to an arbitration provision in a contract that
the court later finds to be perfectly enforceable. Prima
Paint resolved this conundrumand resolved it in favor of
the separate enforceability of arbitration provisions. We
reaffirm today that, regardless of whether the challenge is
brought in federal or state court, a challenge to the validity of the contract as a whole, and not specifically to the
arbitration clause, must go to the arbitrator.
The judgment of the Florida Supreme Court is reversed,
and the case is remanded for further proceedings not
inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
JUSTICE ALITO took no part in the consideration or
decision of this case.
tract elsewhere in the United States Code to refer to putative agreements, regardless of whether they are legal. For instance, the Sherman
Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, states that [e]very contract, combination . . . , or conspiracy in restraint of trade . . . is hereby declared to be
illegal. 15 U. S. C. 1. Under respondents reading of contract, a
bewildering circularity would result: A contract illegal because it was in
restraint of trade would not be a contract at all, and thus the statutory prohibition would not apply.
No. 041264
_________________