Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1272_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

8 

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

Opinion of the Court 

Fourth,  Archer  and  White  asserts  another  policy  argu-
ment: that the “wholly groundless” exception is necessary
to  deter  frivolous  motions  to  compel  arbitration.    Again,
we  may  not  rewrite  the  statute  simply  to  accommodate
that policy concern.  In any event, Archer and White over-
states  the  potential  problem.  Arbitrators  can  efficiently
dispose of frivolous cases by quickly ruling that a claim is
not  in  fact  arbitrable.    And  under  certain  circumstances, 
arbitrators may be able to respond to frivolous arguments
for  arbitration  by  imposing  fee-shifting  and  cost-shifting 
sanctions, which in turn will help deter and remedy frivo-
lous motions to compel arbitration.  We are not aware that 
frivolous  motions  to  compel  arbitration  have  caused  a
substantial problem in those Circuits that have not recog-
nized a “wholly groundless” exception. 

In  sum,  we  reject  the  “wholly  groundless”  exception.
The  exception  is  inconsistent  with  the  statutory  text  and
with  our  precedent.  It  confuses  the  question  of  who  de-
cides  arbitrability  with  the  separate  question  of  who  pre-
vails  on  arbitrability.  When  the  parties’  contract  dele-
gates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, the courts
must  respect  the  parties’  decision  as  embodied  in  the 
contract. 

We express no view about whether the contract at issue
in  this  case  in  fact  delegated  the  arbitrability  question  to 
an  arbitrator.  The  Court  of  Appeals  did  not  decide  that 
issue.    Under  our  cases,  courts  “should  not  assume  that 
the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability unless there is
clear  and  unmistakable  evidence  that  they  did  so.”    First 
Options,  514  U. S.,  at  944  (alterations  omitted).    On  re-
mand, the Court of Appeals may address that issue in the
first instance, as well as other arguments that Archer and 
White has properly preserved. 

The  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  is  vacated,  and
the  case  is  remanded  for  further  proceedings  consistent
with this opinion. 

It is so ordered.