Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-133_19m1.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

6 

AMERICAN EXPRESS CO. v. ITALIAN COLORS 
RESTAURANT 
Opinion of the Court 

The  “effective  vindication”  exception  to  which  respond-
ents  allude  originated  as  dictum  in  Mitsubishi  Motors, 
where we expressed a willingness to invalidate, on “public 
policy” grounds, arbitration agreements that “operat[e] . . . 
as a prospective waiver of a party’s right to pursue statu-
tory remedies.”  473 U. S., at 637, n. 19 (emphasis added).
Dismissing  concerns  that  the  arbitral  forum  was  inade-
quate,  we  said  that  “so  long  as  the  prospective  litigant 
effectively  may  vindicate  its  statutory  cause  of  action  in
the arbitral forum, the statute will continue to serve both 
its  remedial  and  deterrent  function.”    Id.,  at  637.    Subse-
quent  cases  have  similarly  asserted  the  existence  of  an
“effective  vindication”  exception,  see,  e.g.,  14  Penn  Plaza 
LLC  v.  Pyett,  556  U. S.  247,  273–274  (2009);  Gilmer  v. 
Interstate/Johnson  Lane  Corp.,  500  U. S.  20,  28  (1991),
but  have  similarly  declined  to  apply  it  to  invalidate  the 
arbitration agreement at issue.2 

And  we  do  so  again  here.    As  we  have  described,  the 
exception finds its origin in the desire to prevent “prospec-
tive  waiver  of  a  party’s  right  to  pursue  statutory  reme-
dies,”  Mitsubishi  Motors,  supra,  at  637,  n. 19  (emphasis 
added).  That  would  certainly  cover  a  provision  in  an
arbitration  agreement  forbidding  the  assertion  of  certain
statutory  rights.    And  it  would  perhaps  cover  filing  and 
administrative  fees  attached  to  arbitration  that  are  so 
high  as  to  make  access  to  the  forum  impracticable.    See 
—————— 

2 Contrary  to  the  dissent’s  claim,  post,  at  8–9,  and  n.  3  (opinion  of 
KAGAN,  J.),  the  Court  in  Mitsubishi  Motors  did  not  hold  that  federal 
statutory claims are subject to arbitration so long as the claimant may
effectively  vindicate  his  rights  in  the  arbitral  forum.    The  Court  ex-
pressly  stated  that,  “at  this  stage  in  the  proceedings,”  it  had  “no  occa-
sion  to  speculate”  on  whether  the  arbitration  agreement’s  potential
deprivation of a claimant’s right to pursue federal remedies may render 
that agreement unenforceable.  473 U. S., at 637, n. 19.  Even the Court 
of Appeals in this case recognized the relevant language in Mitsubishi 
Motors  as  dicta.  In re  American  Express  Merchants’  Litigation,  667 
F. 3d 204, 214 (CA2 2012).