Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna (2005)
- Docket
- 04-1264
- Decided
- 2005-01-01
Summary
Question: Under the Federal Arbitration Act, may a party avoid arbitration by arguing that the contract in which the arbitration clause is contained is illegal? Conclusion: No. The 7-1 majority (Justice Samuel Alito not participating) ruled that challenges to the legality of a contract as a whole must be argued before the arbitrator rather than a court. The opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia explained that "unless the challenge is to the arbitration clause itself, the issue of the contract's validity is considered by the arbitrator in the first instance." The Court held that the Florida Supreme Court had been wrong to rely on a distinction between void and merely voidable contracts, because the word "contract" in the Federal Arbitration Act includes contracts later found to be void. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented due to his long-held view that the FAA does not apply in state courts.