Rent-A-Center v. Jackson
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Apr 26, 2010
|Jun 21, 2010||5-4||Scalia||OT 2009|
Holding: If after parties agree to arbitrate a dispute rather than take it to court, one side challenges the arbitration provision itself, then a court must decide the challenge. However, if the enforceability of the agreement as a whole is challenged, the challenge must be decided by an arbitrator.
Judgment: Reversed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia on June 21, 2010. Justice Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.
- New rule for deciding validity of agreements to arbitrate arbitration (Kevin Russell)
- Arbitrating arbitration: who reviews the enforceability of an agreement to arbitrate? (Anna Christensen)
- Determining the fairness of forced arbitration provisions (Anna Christensen)
Briefs and Documents
- Brief of Petitioner Rent-A-Center, West, Inc.
- Brief for Respondent Antonio Jackson
- Reply Brief of Petitioner Rent-A-Center, West, Inc.
 Amicus Briefs
- Brief for the Equal Employment Advisory Council in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Professional Arbitrators and Arbitration Scholars in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Alliance for Justice, Asian American Justice Center, Constitutional Accountability Center, National Partnership for Women & Families, and National Women's Law Center in Support of Respondent
- Brief for National Association of Consumer Advocates in Support of Respondent
- Brief for National Association for Justice and AARP in Support of Respondent
- Brief for National Consumer Law Center and Consumer Action in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Service Employees International Union, Legal Aid Society – Employment Law Center, National Employment Lawyers Association, National Employment Law Project, Women's Employment Rights Clinic, and The Employee Rights Advocacy Institute for Law & Policy in Support of Respondent