skip navigation
search

BUCKEYE CHECK CASHING, INC. v. CARDEGNA (No. 04-1264)
894 So. 2d 860, reversed and remanded.
Syllabus

Opinion
[Scalia]
Dissent
[Thomas]
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version

546 U. S. ____ (2006)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

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.