Portal:Supreme Court of the United States

“ Unless a party specifically challenges the validity of the agreement to arbitrate, both sides may be required to take all their disputes–including disputes about the validity of their broader contract–to arbitration. Ibid. Applying these principles to this case, New Prime notes that Mr. Oliveira has not specifically challenged the parties’ delegation clause and submits that any controversy should therefore proceed only and immediately before an arbitrator. ”

“ Nothing in our holding on this score should come as a surprise. We’ve long stressed the significance of the statute’s sequencing. In Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America, 350 U. S. 198, 201–202 (1956) , we recognized that “Sections 1, 2, and 3 [and 4] are integral parts of a whole.... [Sections] 1 and 2 define the field in which Congress was legislating,” and §§3 and 4 apply only to contracts covered by those provisions. In Circuit City, we acknowledged that “Section 1 exempts from the [Act] ... contracts of employment of transportation workers.” ”

“ Oliveira is entitled to the benefit of that same understanding today. Accordingly, his agreement with New Prime falls within §1’s exception, the court of appeals was correct that it lacked authority under the Act to order arbitration, and the judgment is
Affirmed.
Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
↑ See, e. g., 3 J. Murray, A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles 130 (1891) (defining “employment” as, among other things, “ [t] he action or process of employing; the state of being employed. The service (of a person) . ”

“ The development of these concepts must await future cases....”) . As these illustrations suggest, sometimes, “ [w] ords in statutes can enlarge or contract their scope as other changes, in law or in the world, require their application to new instances or make old applications anachronistic.” West v. Gibson, 527 U. S. 212, 218 (1999) . ”

“ Black’s Law Dictionary 422 (2d ed. 1910) (“an engagement or rendering services” for oneself or another) ; 3 Oxford English Dictionary 130 (1933) (“ [t] hat on which (one) is employed; business; occupation ”