by the Supreme Court of the United States

“ And when parties commit to arbitrate contractual disputes, it is a mainstay of the Act's substantive law that attacks on the validity of the contract, as distinct from attacks on the validity of the arbitration clause itself, are to be resolved "by the arbitrator in the first instance, not by a federal or state court." ”

“ Here, the Oklahoma Supreme Court failed to do so. By declaring the noncompetition agreements in two employment contracts null and void, rather than leaving that determination to the arbitrator in the first instance, the state court ignored a basic tenet of the Act's substantive arbitration law. The decision must be vacated.
* * This dispute arises from a contract between petitioner Nitro-Lift Technologies, L. L. C., and two of its former employees. Nitro-Lift contracts with operators of oil and gas wells to provide services that enhance production. ”

“ SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NITRO-LIFT TECHNOLOGIES, L. L. C. v. EDDIE LEE HOWARD ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA
No. 11–1377. Decided November 26, 2012 Per Curiam.
State courts rather than federal courts are most frequently called upon to apply the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) , 9 U. S. C. §1 et seq., including the Act's national policy favoring arbitration. It is a matter of great importance, therefore, that state supreme courts adhere to a correct interpretation of the legislation. ”