Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1272_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 4

2 

HENRY SCHEIN, INC. v. ARCHER & WHITE SALES, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

groundless.”    The  question  presented  in  this  case  is 
whether  the  “wholly  groundless”  exception  is  consistent 
with  the  Federal  Arbitration  Act.    We  conclude  that  it  is 
not.  The Act does not contain a “wholly groundless” excep-
tion,  and  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  rewrite  the  statute 
passed  by  Congress  and  signed  by  the  President.    When 
the parties’ contract delegates the arbitrability question to 
an arbitrator, the courts must respect the parties’ decision 
as  embodied  in  the  contract.    We  vacate  the  contrary 
judgment of the Court of Appeals. 

I 
  Archer  and  White  is  a  small  business  that  distributes 
dental  equipment.    Archer  and  White  entered  into  a  con-
tract with Pelton and Crane, a dental equipment manufac-
turer,  to  distribute  Pelton  and  Crane’s  equipment.    The 
relationship  eventually  soured.    As  relevant  here,  Archer 
and  White  sued  Pelton  and  Crane’s  successor-in-interest 
and  Henry  Schein,  Inc.  (collectively,  Schein)  in  Federal 
District  Court  in  Texas.    Archer  and  White’s  complaint 
alleged  violations  of  federal  and  state  antitrust  law,  and 
sought both money damages and injunctive relief. 
  The relevant contract between the parties provided: 

  “Disputes.    This  Agreement  shall  be  governed  by 
the laws of the State of North Carolina.  Any dispute 
arising under or related to this Agreement (except for 
actions  seeking  injunctive  relief  and  disputes  related 
to  trademarks,  trade  secrets,  or  other  intellectual 
property of [Schein]), shall be resolved by binding ar-
bitration  in  accordance  with  the  arbitration  rules  of 
the  American  Arbitration  Association  [(AAA)].    The 
place of arbitration shall be in Charlotte, North Caro-
lina.”  App. to Pet. for Cert. 3a. 

After Archer and White sued, Schein invoked the Federal 
Arbitration  Act  and  asked  the  District  Court  to  refer  the