“ The Court rejects respondent’s argument that the Court’s holding attributes an irrational intent to Congress by excluding from the FAA’s coverage those employment contracts that most involve interstate commerce, i.e., those of transportation workers, while including employment contracts having a lesser connection to commerce. ”

“ Accordingly, any argument that arbitration agreements in employment contracts are not covered by the FAA must be premised on the language of the §1 exclusion itself. Pp. 5—6. (c) The statutory text forecloses the construction that §1 excludes all employment contracts from the FAA. Respondent relies on Allied-Bruce’s expansive reading of “involving commerce” to contend that §1’s “engaged in ... commerce” language should have a like reach, exempting from the FAA all employment contracts falling within Congress’ commerce power. ”

“ This reading of §1 runs into the insurmountable textual obstacle that, unlike §2’s “involving commerce” language, the §1 words “any other class of workers engaged in ... commerce” constitute a residual phrase, following, in the same sentence, explicit reference to “seamen” and “railroad employees.” ”