AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion

Holding: California state contract law, which deems class-action waivers in arbitration agreements unenforceable when certain criteria are met, is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act because it stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.

Plain English Holding: Under the Federal Arbitration Act, California must enforce arbitration agreements even if the agreement requires that consumer complaints be arbitrated individually (instead of on a class-action basis).

Judgment: Ninth Circuit Reversed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on April 27, 2011. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

Briefs and Documents

Merits Briefs

• Brief for Petitioner AT&T Mobility, LLC
• Brief for Respondents Vincent and Liza Concepcion
• Reply Brief for Petitioner AT&T Mobility, LLC

Amicus Briefs

• Brief for Equal Employment Advisory Council in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for American Bankers Association, American Financial Services Association, Consumer Bankers Association, Financial Services Roundtable and California Bankers Association in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the New England Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for CTIA – The Wireless Association in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for DRI—The Voice of the Defense Bar in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for Pacific Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the States of South Carolina and Utah in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for Distinguished Law Professors in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Center for Class Action Fairness in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Constitutional Accountability Center in Support of Respondents
• Brief for the American Association for Justice in Support of Respondents
• Brief for Contracts Professors in Support of Respondents
• Brief for the States of Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Vermont and the District of Columbia in Support of Respondents
• Brief for Constitutional Accountability Center in Support of Respondents
• Brief for Marygrace Coneff et al. in Support of Respondents
• Brief of the American Antitrust Institute in Support of Respondents
• Brief for Federal Jurisdiction Professors in Support of Respondents
• Brief for NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. in Support of Respondents
• Brief for Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Employee Rights Advocacy Institute for Law & Policy, National Employment Law Project, National Employment Lawyers Association, National Partnership for Women & Families, and National Women’s Law Center in Support of Respondents
• Brief for the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia and National Consumer Advocacy Organizations in Support of Respondents
• Brief for Arbitration Professors in Support of Respondents
• Brief for Civil Procedure and Complex Litigation Professors in Support of Respondents
• Brief for Jonathan C. Kaltwasser in Support of Respondents
• Brief for National Workrights Institute in Support of Respondents
• Brief for National Academy of Arbitrators in Support of Respondents

Certiorari-Stage Documents

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari (unavailable)
• Brief in opposition (unavailable)
• Petitioner’s reply (unavailable)
• Supplemental brief of respondents
• Amicus brief of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (unavailable)
• Amicus brief of DRI – The Voice of the Defense Bar (unavailable)
• Amicus brief of CTIA – The Wireless Association (unavailable)
• Amicus brief of the Pacific Legal Foundation et al.