Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1573_8p6h.pdf
Page Number: 30

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

1 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–1573 
_________________ 

VIKING RIVER CRUISES, INC., PETITIONER v. 
ANGIE MORIANA 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF 
CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

[June 15, 2022] 

JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting. 
I continue to adhere to the view that the Federal Arbitra-
tion Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. §1 et seq., does not apply to pro-
ceedings in state courts.  See Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. 
Dobson,  513  U. S.  265,  285–297  (1995)  (THOMAS,  J.,  dis-
senting); see also Kindred Nursing Centers L. P. v. Clark, 
581 U. S. 246, 257 (2017) (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (collect-
ing cases).  Accordingly, the FAA does not require Califor-
nia’s courts to enforce an arbitration agreement that forbids 
an employee to invoke  the State’s Private Attorneys Gen-
eral Act.  On that basis, I would affirm the judgment of the
California Court of Appeal.