Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. John Cardegna et al. (546 U.S. 440)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided February 21, 2006 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 546 U.S. 440 · 126 S. Ct. 1204
- Decided
- February 21, 2006
- Term
- October Term 2005
- Vote
- 7–1
- Majority author
- Justice Scalia
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. We decide whether a court or an arbitrator should consider 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 petitioner Buckeye Check Cashing (Buckeye), in which they received cash in exchange for a personal check in the amount of thie cash plus a finance charge. For each separate 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 Paragraph 2 below.... “2. Arbitration Provisions Any claim, dispute, or controversy . . . arising from or relating to this Agreement ... or the validity, enforceability, or scope of this Arbitration 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…
Excerpt of a 14,350-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.