US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna 546 U. S. ____
Subscribe to Cases that cite 546 U. S. ____Syllabus
Opinion [Justice Scalia]
Dissent [Justice Thomas]
546 U. S. ____ (2006)
546 U. S. ____ (2006)
546 U. S. ____ (2006)
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 proceedings, the FAA cannot be the basis for displacing a state law that prohibits enforcement of an arbitration clause contained in a contract that is unenforceable under state law. Accordingly, I would leave undisturbed the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court.
