Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-893.pdf
Page Number: 38

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

11 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

(2009); (slip op., at 13); Doctor’s Associates, supra, at 687; 
Allied-Bruce  Terminix  Cos.  v.  Dobson,  513  U. S.  265,  281 
(1995);  Rodriguez  de  Quijas  v.  Shearson/American  Ex-
press,  Inc.,  490  U. S.  477,  483–484  (1989);  Perry  v.  Tho-
mas,  482  U. S.  483,  492–493,  n.  9  (1987);  Mitsubishi 
Motors, supra, at 627.   And we have recognized that “[t]o 
immunize  an  arbitration  agreement  from  judicial  chal­
lenge” on grounds applicable to all other contracts “would
be to elevate it over other forms of contract.”  Prima Paint 
Corp.  v.  Flood  &  Conklin  Mfg.  Co.,  388  U. S.  395,  404, 
n. 12  (1967);  see  also  Marchant  v.  Mead-Morrison  Mfg. 
Co.,  252  N. Y.  284,  299,  169  N. E.  386,  391  (1929)  (Car­
dozo, C. J.) (“Courts are not at liberty to shirk the process 
of  [contractual]  construction  under  the  empire  of  a  belief 
that  arbitration  is  beneficent  any  more  than  they  may 
shirk it if their belief happens to be the contrary”); Cohen 
&  Dayton,  12  Va.  L. Rev.,  at  276  (the  Act  “is  no  infringe­
ment upon the right of each State to decide for itself what
contracts shall or shall not exist under its laws”). 

These  cases  do  not  concern  the  merits  and  demerits  of 
class  actions;  they  concern  equal  treatment  of  arbitration
contracts and other contracts.  Since it is the latter ques­
tion  that  is  at  issue  here,  I  am  not  surprised  that  the 
majority  can  find  no  meaningful  precedent  supporting  its 
decision. 

IV 

By using the words “save upon such grounds as exist at 

law  or  in  equity  for  the  revocation  of  any  contract,”  Con­
gress retained for the States an important role incident to
agreements  to  arbitrate.    9  U. S. C.  §2.    Through  those 
words  Congress  reiterated  a  basic  federal  idea  that  has 
long  informed  the  nature  of  this  Nation’s  laws.  We  have 
often  expressed  this  idea  in  opinions  that  set  forth  pre­
sumptions.  See,  e.g.,  Medtronic,  Inc.  v.  Lohr,  518  U. S. 
470,  485  (1996)  (“[B]ecause  the  States  are  independent