Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-893.pdf
Page Number: 23

2 

AT&T MOBILITY LLC v. CONCEPCION 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

agreement, such as by proving fraud or duress.  9 U. S. C. 
§§2,  4.  Under  this  reading,  I  would  reverse  the  Court  of 
Appeals  because  a  district  court  cannot  follow  both  the 
FAA and the Discover Bank rule, which does not relate to 
defects in the making of an agreement. 

This  reading  of  the  text,  however,  has  not  been  fully
developed  by  any  party,  cf.  Brief  for  Petitioner  41,  n. 12, 
and  could  benefit  from  briefing  and  argument  in  an  ap-
propriate case.  Moreover, I think that the Court’s test will 
often  lead  to  the  same  outcome  as  my  textual  interpreta-
tion and that, when  possible, it is important in interpret-
ing statutes to give lower courts guidance from a majority
of  the  Court.  See  US  Airways,  Inc.  v.  Barnett,  535 
U. S. 391, 411 (2002) (O’Connor, J., concurring).  Therefore, 
although  I  adhere  to  my  views  on  purposes-and-objectives
pre-emption, see Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U. S. 555, ___ (2009) 
(opinion  concurring  in  judgment),  I  reluctantly  join  the 
Court’s opinion. 

I 
The FAA generally requires courts to enforce arbitration
agreements  as  written.    Section  2  provides  that  “[a]  writ-
ten provision in . . . a contract . . . to settle by arbitration a
controversy  thereafter  arising  out  of  such  contract  . . . 
shall  be  valid,  irrevocable,  and  enforceable,  save  upon
such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation 
of any contract.”  Significantly, the statute does not paral-
lel the words “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable” by refer-
encing  the  grounds  as  exist  for  the  “invalidation,  revoca-
tion,  or  nonenforcement”  of  any  contract.    Nor  does  the 
statute use a different word or phrase entirely that might
arguably  encompass  validity,  revocability,  and  enforce-
ability.  The  use  of  only  “revocation”  and  the  conspicuous
omission  of  “invalidation”  and  “nonenforcement”  suggest
that the exception does not include all defenses applicable 
to  any  contract  but  rather  some  subset  of  those  defenses.