Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-893.pdf
Page Number: 32

Cite as:  563 U. S. ____ (2011) 

5 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

upon  such  grounds  as  exist  at  law  or  in  equity  for  the 
revocation of any contract,” 9 U. S. C. §2. 

Thus, insofar as we seek to implement Congress’ intent, 
we  should  think  more  than  twice  before  invalidating  a
state  law  that  does  just  what  §2  requires,  namely,  puts 
agreements  to  arbitrate  and  agreements  to  litigate  “upon 
the same footing.” 

III 
The majority’s contrary view (that Discover Bank stands 
as an “obstacle” to the accomplishment of the federal law’s 
objective,  ante,  at  9–18)  rests  primarily  upon  its  claims 
that  the  Discover  Bank  rule  increases  the  complexity  of
arbitration  procedures,  thereby  discouraging  parties  from 
entering  into  arbitration  agreements,  and  to  that  extent
discriminating  in  practice  against  arbitration.    These 
claims are not well founded. 

For one thing, a state rule of law that would sometimes 
set  aside  as  unconscionable  a  contract  term  that  forbids 
class arbitration is not (as the majority claims) like a rule 
that  would  require  “ultimate  disposition  by  a  jury”  or 
“judicially  monitored  discovery”  or  use  of  “the  Federal 
Rules  of  Evidence.”  Ante,  at  8,  9.  Unlike  the  majority’s
examples,  class  arbitration  is  consistent  with  the  use  of 
arbitration.  It is a form of arbitration that is well known 
in California and followed elsewhere.  See, e.g., Keating v. 
Superior Ct., 167 Cal. Rptr. 481, 492 (App. 1980) (officially 
depublished);  American  Arbitration  Association  (AAA),
(2003),
Supplementary  Rules 
http://www.adr.org/sp.asp?id=21936  (as  visited  Apr.  25,
2011,  and  available  in  Clerk  of  Court’s  case  file);  JAMS,
The  Resolution  Experts,  Class  Action  Procedures  (2009). 
Indeed,  the  AAA  has  told  us  that  it  has  found  class  ar­
bitration  to  be  “a  fair,  balanced,  and  efficient  means  of 
resolving class disputes.”  Brief for AAA as Amicus Curiae 
in  Stolt-Nielsen  S. A.  v.  AnimalFeeds  Int’l  Corp.,  O.  T. 

for  Class  Arbitrations