Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-133_19m1.pdf
Page Number: 28

Cite as:  570 U. S. ____ (2013) 

15 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

argument  about  why  the  effective-vindication  rule  pre-
cludes this agreement’s enforcement.

As  a  result,  Amex’s  contract  will  succeed  in  depriving 
Italian  Colors  of  any  effective  opportunity  to  challenge 
monopolistic conduct allegedly in violation of the Sherman 
Act.  The  FAA,  the  majority  says,  so  requires.    Do  not  be 
fooled.  Only  the  Court  so  requires;  the  FAA  was  never 
meant  to  produce  this  outcome.  The  FAA  conceived  of 
arbitration  as  a  “method  of  resolving  disputes”—a  way  of 
using  tailored  and  streamlined  procedures  to  facilitate 
redress of injuries.  Rodriguez de Quijas, 490 U. S., at 481 
(emphasis added).  In the hands of today’s majority, arbi-
tration  threatens  to  become  more  nearly  the  opposite—a 
mechanism easily made to block the vindication of merito-
rious  federal  claims  and  insulate  wrongdoers  from  liabil-
ity.  The  Court  thus  undermines  the  FAA  no  less  than  it 
does the Sherman Act and other federal statutes providing
rights of action.  I respectfully dissent.