The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Tuesday, October 4, 1994
Decision: Wednesday, January 18, 1995
Issues: Federalism, Federal Preemption of State Regulation

Advocates

Allan R. Chason (Argued the cause for the respondents)
H. Bartow Farr, III (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

In 1987, Steven Gwin, a homeowner in Birmingham, Alabama, bought a lifetime "Termite Protection Plan" from a local office of Allied-Bruce Terminix Company. The termite prevention contract specified that any controversy would be settled exclusively by arbitration. After the Gwins sold their house and transferred their plan to the Dobsons, the Dobsons initiated suit against the Gwins, Allied-Bruce, and Terminix following a termite infestation. Allied-Bruce and Terminix asked for, but were denied, a stay to allow for arbitration under the contract and the Federal Arbitration Act. In affirming, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the denial of the stay on the basis of a state statute making written, predispute arbitration agreements invalid and unenforceable. The court also found that the Federal Arbitration Act did not apply because the parties entering the contract contemplated transactions that were primarily local and not substantially interstate.

Question

Should the Federal Arbitration Act, making an arbitration provision enforceable in contracts "evidencing a transaction involving commerce," be applied broadly?

Conclusion

Yes. In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act applied to all disputes involving commerce, and thus the arbitration clause was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the word "involving" in section 2 of the Act signaled an intent to exercise Congress' commerce clause power to the full and that section 2 is to be read requiring only that the "transaction" in fact "involve" interstate commerce, even if the parties did not contemplate an interstate commerce connection. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor filed a concurring opinion. Justices Scalia and Clarence Thomas filed dissenting opinions.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 7 votes for Allied-Bruce Terminix Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: 9 U.S.C. 1
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Wrote a regular concurrence
O'Connor
Wrote a dissent, joined Thomas' dissent
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Wrote a dissent
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Wrote the majority opinion
Breyer
Full Opinion by Justice Stephen G. Breyer

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Allied-Bruce Terminix Co. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265 (1995),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1001/>
(last visited ).