Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-133_19m1.pdf
Page Number: 5

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

U. S.  ___  (2011),  which  held  that  the  FAA  pre-empted  a
state law barring enforcement of a class-arbitration waiver.
Finding AT&T Mobility inapplicable because it addressed
pre-emption,  the  Court  of  Appeals  reversed  for  the  third 
time.  667  F. 3d,  at  213.    It  then  denied  rehearing  en
banc  with  five  judges  dissenting.  In re  American  Express 
Merchants’  Litigation,  681  F. 3d  139  (CA2  2012).    We 
granted  certiorari,  568  U. S.  ___  (2012),  to  consider  the 
question  “[w]hether  the  Federal  Arbitration  Act  permits 
courts  . . .  to  invalidate  arbitration  agreements  on  the 
ground  that  they  do  not  permit  class  arbitration  of  a 
federal-law claim,” Pet. for Cert. i. 

II 
Congress  enacted  the  FAA  in  response  to  widespread
judicial  hostility  to  arbitration.  See  AT&T  Mobility, 
supra,  at  ___  (slip  op.,  at  4).    As  relevant  here,  the  Act 
provides: 

“A written provision in any maritime transaction or 
contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce 
to  settle  by  arbitration  a  controversy  thereafter  aris-
ing out of such contract or transaction . . . shall be valid,
irrevocable,  and  enforceable,  save  upon  such  grounds
as  exist  at  law  or  in  equity  for  the  revocation  of  any
contract.”  9 U. S. C. §2. 

This  text  reflects  the  overarching  principle  that  arbitra-
tion is a matter of contract.  See Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. 
v.  Jackson,  561  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2010)  (slip  op.,  at  3).    And 
consistent with that text, courts must “rigorously enforce”
arbitration  agreements  according  to  their  terms,  Dean 
Witter  Reynolds  Inc.  v.  Byrd,  470  U. S.  213,  221  (1985),
including  terms  that  “specify  with  whom  [the  parties]
choose to arbitrate their disputes,” Stolt-Nielsen, supra, at 
683,  and  “the  rules  under  which  that  arbitration  will  be 
conducted,”  Volt  Information  Sciences,  Inc.  v.  Board  of