Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1272_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 5

Cite as:  586 U. S. ____ (2019) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

parties’ antitrust dispute to arbitration.  Archer and White 
objected, arguing that the dispute was not subject to arbi-
tration  because  Archer  and  White’s  complaint  sought
injunctive relief, at least in part.  According to Archer and
White, the parties’ contract barred arbitration of disputes
when the plaintiff sought injunctive relief, even if only in 
part.

The  question  then  became:  Who  decides  whether  the
antitrust  dispute  is  subject  to  arbitration?    The  rules  of 
the American Arbitration Association provide that arbitra-
tors  have  the  power  to  resolve  arbitrability  questions. 
Schein contended that the contract’s express incorporation
of the American Arbitration Association’s rules meant that 
an  arbitrator—not  the  court—had  to  decide  whether  the 
arbitration  agreement  applied  to  this  particular  dispute.
Archer  and  White  responded  that  in  cases  where  the 
defendant’s  argument  for  arbitration  is  wholly  ground-
less—as Archer and White argued was the case here—the
District Court itself may resolve the threshold question of 
arbitrability.

Relying  on  Fifth  Circuit  precedent,  the  District  Court
agreed  with  Archer  and  White  about  the  existence  of  a 
“wholly  groundless”  exception,  and  ruled  that  Schein’s 
argument  for  arbitration  was  wholly  groundless.  The 
District  Court therefore denied Schein’s motion to compel
arbitration.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed.   

In  light  of  disagreement  in  the  Courts  of  Appeals  over 
whether  the  “wholly  groundless”  exception  is  consistent
with  the  Federal  Arbitration  Act,  we  granted  certiorari, 
585  U. S.  ___  (2018).    Compare  878  F. 3d  488  (CA5  2017) 
(case  below);  Simply  Wireless,  Inc.  v.  T-Mobile  US,  Inc., 
877  F. 3d  522  (CA4  2017);  Douglas  v.  Regions  Bank,  757 
F. 3d 460 (CA5 2014); Turi v. Main Street Adoption Servs., 
LLP,  633  F. 3d  496  (CA6  2011);  Qualcomm,  Inc.  v.  Nokia 
Corp., 466 F. 3d 1366 (CA Fed. 2006), with Belnap v. Iasis 
Healthcare,  844  F. 3d  1272  (CA10  2017);  Jones  v.  Waffle