Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-133_19m1.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

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

1 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 12–133 
_________________ 

AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, ET AL., PETITIONERS 
v. ITALIAN COLORS RESTAURANT ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
 

[June 20, 2013] 

JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring. 
I  join  the  Court’s  opinion  in  full.  I  write  separately  to
note  that  the  result  here  is  also  required  by  the  plain 
meaning of the Federal Arbitration Act.  In AT&T Mobil-
ity  LLC  v.  Concepcion,  563  U. S.  ___  (2011),  I  explained 
that “the FAA requires that an agreement to arbitrate be
enforced  unless  a  party  successfully  challenges  the  forma-
tion of the arbitration agreement, such as by proving fraud
or  duress.” 
Id.,  at  ___  (concurring  opinion)  (slip  op., 
at 1–2).  In this case, Italian Colors makes two arguments
to  support  its  conclusion  that  the  arbitration  agreement 
should  not  be  enforced.    First,  it  contends  that  enforcing
the  arbitration  agreement  “would  contravene  the  policies 
of the antitrust laws.”  Ante, at 4.  Second, it contends that 
a  court  may  “invalidate  agreements  that  prevent  the  ‘ef-
fective vindication’ of a federal statutory right.”  Ante, at 6. 
Neither  argument  “concern[s]  whether  the  contract  was
properly  made,”  Concepcion,  supra,  at  ___  (THOMAS,  J., 
concurring)  (slip  op.,  at  5–6).    Because  Italian  Colors 
has  not  furnished  “grounds  . . .  for  the  revocation  of  any
contract,”  9  U. S. C.  §2,  the  arbitration  agreement  must
be enforced.  Italian Colors voluntarily entered into a con- 
tract  containing  a  bilateral  arbitration  provision.    It  can-
not now escape its obligations merely because the claim it
wishes to bring might be economically infeasible.