(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2005 1
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
BUCKEYE CHECK CASHING, INC. v. CARDEGNA
ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
No. 04–1264. Argued November 29, 2005—Decided February 21, 2006
For each deferred-payment transaction respondents entered into with
Buckeye Check Cashing, they signed an Agreement containing provi-
sions that required binding arbitration to resolve disputes arising out
of the Agreement. Respondents sued in Florida state court, alleging
that Buckeye charged usurious interest rates and that the Agreement
violated various Florida laws, rendering it criminal on its face. The
trial court denied Buckeye’s motion to compel arbitration, holding
that a court rather than an arbitrator should resolve a claim that a
contract is illegal and void ab initio. A state appellate court reversed,
but was in turn reversed by the Florida Supreme Court, which rea-
soned that enforcing an arbitration agreement in a contract chal-
lenged as unlawful would violate state public policy and contract law.
Held: Regardless of whether it is brought in federal or state court, a
challenge to the validity of a contract as a whole, and not specifically
to the arbitration clause within it, must go to the arbitrator, not the
court. Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U. S. 395,
and Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U. S. 1, answer the question
presented here by establishing three propositions. First, as a matter
of substantive federal arbitration law, an arbitration provision is sev-
erable from the remainder of the contract. See Prima Paint, 388
U. S., at 400, 402–404. Second, unless the challenge is to the arbitra-
tion clause itself, the issue of the contract’s validity is considered by
the arbitrator in the first instance. See id., at 403–404. Third, this
arbitration law applies in state as well as federal courts. See South-
land, supra, at 12. The crux of respondents’ claim is that the Agree-
ment as a whole (including its arbitration provision) is rendered inva-
lid by the usurious finance charge. Because this challenges the
2 BUCKEYE CHECK CASHING, INC. v. CARDEGNA
Syllabus
Agreement, and not specifically its arbitration provisions, the latter
are enforceable apart from the remainder of the contract, and the
challenge should be considered by an arbitrator, not a court. The
Florida Supreme Court erred in declining to apply Prima Paint’s sev-
erability rule, and respondents’ assertion that that rule does not ap-
ply in state court runs contrary to Prima Paint and Southland.
Pp. 3–8.
894 So. 2d 860, reversed and remanded.
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ.,
joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. ALITO, J., took no part in
the consideration or decision of the case.
Cite as: 546 U. S. ____ (2006) 1
Opinion of the Court
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order
that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 04–1264
_________________
BUCKEYE CHECK CASHING, INC., PETITIONER v.
JOHN CARDEGNA ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
FLORIDA
[February 21, 2006]
JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.
We decide whether a court or an arbitrator should con-
sider the claim that a contract containing an arbitration
provision is void for illegality.
I
Respondents John Cardegna and Donna Reuter entered
into various deferred-payment transactions with peti-
tioner Buckeye Check Cashing (Buckeye), in which they
received cash in exchange for a personal check in the
amount of the cash plus a finance charge. For each sepa-
rate transaction they signed a “Deferred Deposit and
Disclosure Agreement” (Agreement), which included the
following arbitration provisions:
“1. Arbitration Disclosure By signing this Agreement,
you agree that i[f] a dispute of any kind arises out of
this Agreement or your application therefore or any
instrument relating thereto, th[e]n either you or we or
third-parties involved can choose to have that dispute
resolved by binding arbitration as set forth in Para-
graph 2 below . . . .
2 BUCKEYE CHECK CASHING, INC. v. CARDEGNA
Opinion of the Court
2. Arbitration Provisions Any claim, dispute, or con-
troversy . . . arising from or relating to this Agreement
. . . or the validity, enforceability, or scope of this Arbi-
tration Provision or the entire Agreement (collectively
‘Claim’), shall be resolved, upon the election of you or
us or said third-parties, by binding arbitration . . . .
This arbitration Agreement is made pursuant to a
transaction involving interstate commerce, and shall
be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (‘FAA’), 9
U. S. C. Sections 1–16. The arbitrator shall apply ap-
plicable substantive law constraint [sic] with the FAA
and applicable statu[t]es of limitations and shall
honor claims of privilege recognized by law . . . .”
Respondents brought this putative class action in Flor-
ida state court, alleging that Buckeye charged usurious
interest rates and that the Agreement violated various
Florida lending and consumer-protection laws, rendering
it criminal on its face. Buckeye moved to compel arbitra-
tion. The trial court denied the motion, holding that a
court rather than an arbitrator should resolve a claim that
a contract is illegal and void ab initio. The District Court
of Appeal of Florida for the Fourth District reversed,
holding that because respondents did not challenge the
arbitration provision itself, but instead claimed that the
entire contract was void, the agreement to arbitrate was
enforceable, and the question of the contract’s legality
should go to the arbitrator.
Respondents appealed, and the Florida Supreme Court
reversed, reasoning that to enforce an agreement to arbi-
trate in a contract challenged as unlawful “ ‘could breathe
life into a contract that not only violates state law, but
also is criminal in nature . . . .’ ” 894 So. 2d 860, 862
(2005) (quoting Party Yards, Inc. v. Templeton, 751 So. 2d
121, 123 (Fla. App. 2000)). We granted certiorari. 545
U. S. ___ (2005).
Cite as: 546 U. S. ____ (2006) 3
Opinion of the Court
II
A
To overcome judicial resistance to arbitration, Congress
enacted the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. §§1–
16. Section 2 embodies the national policy favoring arbi-
tration and places arbitration agreements on equal footing
with all other contracts:
“A written provision in . . . a contract . . . to settle by
arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of
such contract . . . or an agreement in writing to sub-
mit to arbitration an existing controversy arising out
of such a contract . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and
enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or
in equity for the revocation of any contract.”
Challenges to the validity of arbitration agreements “upon
such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation
of any contract” can be divided into two types. One type
challenges specifically the validity of the agreement to
arbitrate. See, e.g., Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U. S.
1, 4–5 (1984) (challenging the agreement to arbitrate as
void under California law insofar as it purported to cover
claims brought under the state Franchise Investment
Law). The other challenges the contract as a whole, either
on a ground that directly affects the entire agreement
(e.g., the agreement was fraudulently induced), or on the
ground that the illegality of one of the contract’s provi-
sions renders the whole contract invalid.1 Respondents’
——————
1 The issue of the contract’s validity is different from the issue of
whether any agreement between the alleged obligor and obligee was
ever concluded. Our opinion today addresses only the former, and does
not speak to the issue decided in the cases cited by respondents (and by
the Florida Supreme Court), which hold that it is for courts to decide
whether the alleged obligor ever signed the contract, Chastain v.
Robinson-Humphrey Co., 957 F. 2d 851 (CA11 1992), whether the
signor lacked authority to commit the alleged principal, Sandvik AB v.
4 BUCKEYE CHECK CASHING, INC. v. CARDEGNA
Opinion of the Court
claim is of this second type. The crux of the complaint is
that the contract as a whole (including its arbitration
provision) is rendered invalid by the usurious finance
charge.
In Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388
U. S. 395 (1967), we addressed the question of who—court
or arbitrator—decides these two types of challenges. The
issue in the case was “whether a claim of fraud in the
inducement of the entire contract is to be resolved by the
federal court, or whether the matter is to be referred to
the arbitrators.” Id., at 402. Guided by §4 of the FAA,2 we
held that “if the claim is fraud in the inducement of the
arbitration clause itself—an issue which goes to the mak-
ing of the agreement to arbitrate—the federal court may
proceed to adjudicate it. But the statutory language does
not permit the federal court to consider claims of fraud in
the inducement of the contract generally.” Id., at 403–404
(internal quotation marks and footnote omitted). We
rejected the view that the question of “severability” was
one of state law, so that if state law held the arbitration
provision not to be severable a challenge to the contract as
a whole would be decided by the court. See id., at 400,
402–403.
Subsequently, in Southland Corp., we held that the FAA
——————
Advent Int’l Corp., 220 F. 3d 99 (CA3 2000); Sphere Drake Ins. Ltd. v.
All American Ins. Co., 256 F. 3d 587 (CA7 2001), and whether the
signor lacked the mental capacity to assent, Spahr v. Secco, 330 F. 3d
1266 (CA10 2003).
2 In pertinent part, §4 reads:
“A party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of
another to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration may
petition any United States district court [with jurisdiction] . . . for an
order directing that such arbitration proceed in a manner provided for
in such agreement . . . . [U]pon being satisfied that the making of the
agreement for arbitration or the failure to comply therewith is not in
issue, the court shall make an order directing the parties to proceed to
arbitration in accordance with the terms of the agreement . . . .”
Cite as: 546 U. S. ____ (2006) 5
Opinion of the Court
“create[d] a body of federal substantive law,” which was
“applicable in state and federal court.” 465 U. S., at 12
(internal quotation marks omitted). We rejected the view
that state law could bar enforcement of §2, even in the
context of state-law claims brought in state court. See id.,
at 10–14; see also Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson,
513 U. S. 265, 270–273 (1995).
B
Prima Paint and Southland answer the question pre-
sented here by establishing three propositions. First, as a
matter of substantive federal arbitration law, an arbitra-
tion provision is severable from the remainder of the
contract. Second, unless the challenge is to the arbitration
clause itself, the issue of the contract’s validity is consid-
ered by the arbitrator in the first instance. Third, this
arbitration law applies in state as well as federal courts.
The parties have not requested, and we do not undertake,
reconsideration of those holdings. Applying them to this
case, we conclude that because respondents challenge the
Agreement, but not specifically its arbitration provisions,
those provisions are enforceable apart from the remainder
of the contract. The challenge should therefore be consid-
ered by an arbitrator, not a court.
In declining to apply Prima Paint’s rule of severability,
the Florida Supreme Court relied on the distinction be-
tween void and voidable contracts. “Florida public policy
and contract law,” it concluded, permit “no severable, or
salvageable, parts of a contract found illegal and void
under Florida law.” 894 So. 2d, at 864. Prima Paint
makes this conclusion irrelevant. That case rejected
application of state severability rules to the arbitration
agreement without discussing whether the challenge at
issue would have rendered the contract void or voidable.
See 388 U. S., at 400–404. Indeed, the opinion expressly
disclaimed any need to decide what state-law remedy was
6 BUCKEYE CHECK CASHING, INC. v. CARDEGNA
Opinion of the Court
available, id., at 400, n. 3, (though Justice Black’s dissent
asserted that state law rendered the contract void, id., at
407). Likewise in Southland, which arose in state court,
we did not ask whether the several challenges made
there—fraud, misrepresentation, breach of contract,
breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the California
Franchise Investment Law—would render the contract
void or voidable. We simply rejected the proposition that
the enforceability of the arbitration agreement turned on
the state legislature’s judgment concerning the forum for
enforcement of the state-law cause of action. See 465
U. S., at 10. So also here, we cannot accept the Florida
Supreme Court’s conclusion that enforceability of the
arbitration agreement should turn on “Florida public
policy and contract law,” 894 So. 2d, at 864.
C
Respondents assert that Prima Paint’s rule of severabil-
ity does not apply in state court. They argue that Prima
Paint interpreted only §§3 and 4—two of the FAA’s proce-
dural provisions, which appear to apply by their terms
only in federal court—but not §2, the only provision that
we have applied in state court. This does not accurately
describe Prima Paint. Although §4, in particular, had
much to do with Prima Paint’s understanding of the rule
of severability, see 388 U. S., at 403–404, this rule ulti-
mately arises out of §2, the FAA’s substantive command
that arbitration agreements be treated like all other con-
tracts. The rule of severability establishes how this equal-
footing guarantee for “a written [arbitration] provision” is
to be implemented. Respondents’ reading of Prima Paint
as establishing nothing more than a federal-court rule of
procedure also runs contrary to Southland’s understand-
ing of that case. One of the bases for Southland’s applica-
tion of §2 in state court was precisely Prima Paint’s
“reli[ance] for [its] holding on Congress’ broad power to
Cite as: 546 U. S. ____ (2006) 7
Opinion of the Court
fashion substantive rules under the Commerce Clause.”
465 U. S., at 11; see also Prima Paint, supra, at 407
(Black, J., dissenting) (“[t]he Court here holds that the
[FAA], as a matter of federal substantive law . . .” (empha-
sis added)). Southland itself refused to “believe Congress
intended to limit the Arbitration Act to disputes subject
only to federal-court jurisdiction.” 465 U. S., at 15.
Respondents point to the language of §2, which renders
“valid, irrevocable, and enforceable” “a written provision
in” or “an agreement in writing to submit to arbitration an
existing controversy arising out of” a “contract.” Since,
respondents argue, the only arbitration agreements to
which §2 applies are those involving a “contract,” and
since an agreement void ab initio under state law is not a
“contract,” there is no “written provision” in or “contro-
versy arising out of” a “contract,” to which §2 can apply.
This argument echoes Justice Black’s dissent in Prima
Paint: “Sections 2 and 3 of the Act assume the existence of
a valid contract. They merely provide for enforcement
where such a valid contract exists.” 388 U. S., at 412–413.
We do not read “contract” so narrowly. The word appears
four times in §2. Its last appearance is in the final clause,
which allows a challenge to an arbitration provision “upon
such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation
of any contract.” (Emphasis added.) There can be no
doubt that “contract” as used this last time must include
contracts that later prove to be void. Otherwise, the
grounds for revocation would be limited to those that
rendered a contract voidable—which would mean (implau-
sibly) that an arbitration agreement could be challenged
as voidable but not as void. Because the sentence’s final
use of “contract” so obviously includes putative contracts,
we will not read the same word earlier in the same sen-
tence to have a more narrow meaning.3 We note that
——————
3 Our more natural reading is confirmed by the use of the word “con-
8 BUCKEYE CHECK CASHING, INC. v. CARDEGNA
Opinion of the Court
neither Prima Paint nor Southland lends support to re-
spondents’ reading; as we have discussed, neither case
turned on whether the challenge at issue would render the
contract voidable or void.
* * *
It is true, as respondents assert, that the Prima Paint
rule permits a court to enforce an arbitration agreement in
a contract that the arbitrator later finds to be void. But it
is equally true that respondents’ approach permits a court
to deny effect to an arbitration provision in a contract that
the court later finds to be perfectly enforceable. Prima
Paint resolved this conundrum—and resolved it in favor of
the separate enforceability of arbitration provisions. We
reaffirm today that, regardless of whether the challenge is
brought in federal or state court, a challenge to the valid-
ity of the contract as a whole, and not specifically to the
arbitration clause, must go to the arbitrator.
The judgment of the Florida Supreme Court is reversed,
and the case is remanded for further proceedings not
inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
JUSTICE ALITO took no part in the consideration or
decision of this case.
——————
tract” elsewhere in the United States Code to refer to putative agree-
ments, regardless of whether they are legal. For instance, the Sherman
Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, states that “[e]very contract, combina-
tion . . . , or conspiracy in restraint of trade . . . is hereby declared to be
illegal.” 15 U. S. C. §1. Under respondents’ reading of “contract,” a
bewildering circularity would result: A contract illegal because it was in
restraint of trade would not be a “contract” at all, and thus the statu-
tory prohibition would not apply.
Cite as: 546 U. S. ____ (2006) 1
THOMAS, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 04–1264
_________________
BUCKEYE CHECK CASHING, INC., PETITIONER v.
JOHN CARDEGNA ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
FLORIDA
[February 21, 2006]
JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting.
I remain of the view that the Federal Arbitration Act
(FAA), 9 U. S. C. §1 et seq., does not apply to proceedings
in state courts. See Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson,
513 U. S. 265, 285–297 (1995) (THOMAS, J., dissenting);
Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U. S. 681, 689
(1996) (same); Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 539
U. S. 444, 460 (2003) (same). Thus, in state-court proceed-
ings, the FAA cannot be the basis for displacing a state law
that prohibits enforcement of an arbitration clause con-
tained in a contract that is unenforceable under state law.
Accordingly, I would leave undisturbed the judgment of the
Florida Supreme Court.