Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1272_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2018 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

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

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

No. 17–1272.  Argued October 29, 2018—Decided January 8, 2019 

Respondent Archer & White Sales, Inc., sued petitioner Henry Schein,
Inc., alleging violations of federal and state antitrust law and seeking
both money damages and injunctive relief.  The relevant contract be-
tween  the  parties  provided  for  arbitration  of  any  dispute  arising
under or related to the agreement, except for, among other things, ac-
tions seeking injunctive relief.  Invoking the Federal Arbitration Act, 
Schein asked the District Court to refer the matter to arbitration, but 
Archer  &  White  argued  that  the  dispute  was  not  subject  to  arbitra-
tion  because  its  complaint  sought  injunctive  relief,  at  least  in  part.
Schein contended that because the rules governing the contract pro-
vide  that  arbitrators  have  the  power  to  resolve  arbitrability  ques-
tions,  an  arbitrator—not  the  court—should  decide  whether  the  arbi-
tration  agreement  applied.    Archer  &  White  countered that Schein’s 
argument for arbitration was wholly groundless, so the District Court
could resolve the threshold arbitrability question.  The District Court 
agreed  with  Archer  &  White  and  denied  Schein’s  motion  to  compel 
arbitration.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed. 

Held: The “wholly groundless” exception to arbitrability is inconsistent
with the Federal Arbitration Act and this Court’s precedent.  Under 
the  Act,  arbitration  is  a  matter  of  contract,  and  courts  must  enforce 
arbitration  contracts  according  to  their  terms.  Rent-A-Center,  West, 
Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U. S. 63, 67.  The parties to such a contract may 
agree to have an arbitrator decide not only the merits of a particular 
dispute,  but  also  “ ‘gateway’  questions  of  ‘arbitrability.’ ”  Id.,  at  68– 
69.  Therefore, when the parties’ contract delegates  the arbitrability 
question to an arbitrator, a court may not override the contract, even 
if  the  court  thinks  that  the  arbitrability  claim  is  wholly  groundless.