Document: 546 U.S. ___ (2006) BUCKEYE CHECK CASHING, INC., Petitioner v. JOHN CARDEGNA, ET AL. No. 04-1264. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 29, 2005. Decided February 21, 2006. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT FLORIDA. SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion Court, in which ROBERTS, C. and STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined. THOMAS, filed a dissenting opinion. ALITO, took no part consideration or decision case. Court. We decide whether court an arbitrator should consider claim that contract containing arbitration provision is void for illegality. I Respondents John Cardegna Donna Reuter entered into various deferred-payment transactions with petitioner Buckeye Check Cashing (Buckeye), they received cash exchange personal check amount plus finance charge. For each separate transaction signed "Deferred Deposit Disclosure Agreement" (Agreement), included following provisions: "1. Arbitration By signing this Agreement, you agree i[f] dispute any kind arises out Agreement your application therefore instrument relating thereto, th[e]n either we third-parties involved can choose to have resolved by binding as set forth Paragraph 2 below . 2. Provisions Any claim, dispute, controversy. arising from Agreement. validity, enforceability, scope Provision entire (collectively `Claim'), shall be resolved, upon election us said third-parties, This made pursuant involving interstate commerce, governed Federal Act (`FAA'), 9 Sections 1-16. The apply applicable substantive law constraint [sic] FAA statu[t]es limitations honor claims privilege recognized ." brought putative class action Florida state court, alleging charged usurious interest rates violated lending consumer-protection laws, rendering it criminal on its face. moved compel arbitration. trial denied motion, holding rather than resolve illegal ab initio. District Appeal Fourth reversed, because respondents did not challenge itself, but instead claimed was void, agreement arbitrate enforceable, question contract's legality go arbitrator. appealed, reasoning enforce challenged unlawful "`could breathe life only violates law, also nature .'" 894 So. 2d 860, 862 (2005) (quoting Party Yards, Inc. Templeton, 751 121, 123 (Fla. App. 2000)). granted certiorari. 545 U. S. (2005). II A To overcome judicial resistance arbitration, Congress enacted (FAA), §§116. Section embodies national policy favoring places agreements equal footing all other contracts: "A written settle controversy thereafter such writing submit existing valid, irrevocable, save grounds exist at equity revocation contract." Challenges validity "uponsuch contract" divided two types. One type challenges specifically arbitrate. See, e.g., Southland Corp. Keating, 465 1, 4-5 (1984) (challenging under California insofar purported cover Franchise Investment Law). whole, ground directly affects (e.g., fraudulently induced), illegality one provisions renders whole invalid.[1] Respondents' second type. crux complaint (including provision) rendered invalid In Prima Paint Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 395 (1967), addressed whocourt arbitratordecides these types challenges. issue case "whether fraud inducement federal matter referred arbitrators." Id., 402. Guided §4 FAA,[2] held "if clause itselfan goes making arbitratethe may proceed adjudicate it. But statutory language does permit generally." 403-404 (internal quotation marks footnote omitted). rejected view "severability" so if severable would decided court. See id., 400, 402-403. Subsequently, Corp., "create[d] body law," "applicable court." U.S., 12 could bar enforcement §2, even context state-law 10-14; see Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. Dobson, 513 265, 270-273 (1995). B answer presented here establishing three propositions. First, remainder contract. Second, unless considered first instance. Third, applies well courts. parties requested, do undertake, reconsideration those holdings. Applying them case, conclude provisions, are enforceable apart arbitrator, declining Paint's rule severability, relied distinction between voidable contracts. "Florida public concluded, "no severable, salvageable, parts found law." 2d, 864. makes conclusion irrelevant. That severability rules without discussing voidable. 400-404. Indeed, expressly disclaimed need what remedy available, n. 3, (though Justice Black's dissent asserted 407). Likewise Southland, arose ask several therefraud, misrepresentation, breach contract, fiduciary duty, violation Lawwould render simply proposition enforceability turned legislature's judgment concerning forum cause action. 10. So here, cannot accept Court's turn C assert They argue interpreted §§3 4two FAA's procedural appear their terms courtbut applied accurately describe Paint. Although §4, particular, had much understanding 403-404, ultimately command treated like establishes how equalfooting guarantee "a [arbitration] provision" implemented. reading nothing more federal-court procedure runs contrary Southland's bases §2 precisely "reli[ance] [its] Congress' broad power fashion Commerce Clause." 11; Paint, supra, 407 (Black, dissenting) ("[t]he holds [FAA], (emphasis added)). itself refused "believe intended limit disputes subject jurisdiction." 15. point "valid, enforceable" in" "an of" "contract." Since, argue, "contract," since initio there "written "controversy apply. argument echoes Paint: "Sections 3 assume existence valid merely provide where exists." 412-413. read "contract" narrowly. word appears four times §2. Its last appearance final clause, allows "upon (Emphasis added.) There doubt used time must include contracts later prove void. Otherwise, limited voidablewhich mean (implausibly) Because sentence's use obviously includes contracts, will same earlier sentence narrow meaning.[3] note neither nor lends support respondents' reading; discussed, * It true, assert, permits finds equally true approach deny effect perfectly enforceable. conundrumand favor provisions. reaffirm today that, regardless remanded further proceedings inconsistent ordered. JUSTICE ALITO dissenting. remain §1 et seq., 285-297 (1995) (THOMAS, dissenting); Doctor's Associates, Casarotto, 517 681, 689 (1996) (same); Green Tree Financial Bazzle, 539 444, 460 (2003) (same). Thus, state-court proceedings, basis displacing prohibits contained unenforceable law. Accordingly, leave undisturbed NOTES [1] different alleged obligor obligee ever concluded. Our addresses former, speak cases cited (and Court), hold courts Chastain Robinson-Humphrey 957 F.2d 851 (CA11 1992), signor lacked authority commit principal, Sandvik AB Advent Int'l 220 F.3d 99 (CA3 2000); Sphere Drake Ins. Ltd. All American 256 587 (CA7 2001), mental capacity assent, Spahr Secco, 330 1266 (CA10 2003). [2] pertinent part, reads: party aggrieved failure, neglect, refusal another petition States district [with jurisdiction] order directing manner provided [U]pon being satisfied failure comply therewith issue, make accordance [3] natural confirmed elsewhere Code refer agreements, legal. instance, Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, amended, states "[e]very combination. , conspiracy restraint trade hereby declared illegal." 15 §1. Under bewildering circularity result: all, thus prohibition

Category: 7