Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.
388 U.S. 395 · No. 343 · 1966 term · Warren Court
Decided Jun 12, 1967 · argued Mar 16, 1967
Economic activity · Arbitration (other than as pertains to labor-management or employer-employee relations
Landmark · Businesses/Corporations/Contracts
Majority opinion: Abe Fortas
The voteMajorityDissent
6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent
3 dissents (6–3)
Affirmed. Prima Paint Corp. lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Prima Paint Corp. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court decision that established what has become known as the "separability principle" in contracts with arbitration clauses. Following an appellate court ruling a decade earlier, it reads the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to require that any challenges to the enforceability of such a contract first be heard by an arbitrator, not a court, unless the claim is that the clause itself is unenforceable.
The case arose from a claim by a New Jersey manufacturer that a Maryland firm had misrepresented itself in a transaction and thus the contract between the two was unenforceable, precluding the arbitration agreed upon in the event of a dispute. Abe Fortas wrote for a 6-3 majority that the FAA was broad enough to require arbitration of all issues save the arbitration clause itself. Hugo Black's dissent called the majority's interpretation overbroad and at odds with Congressional intent in passing the law. He feared it would put legal matters in the hands of arbitrators with little or no legal understanding of it nor duty to follow the law.
In subsequent cases concerning the FAA, the Court has reaffirmed the separability principle and held that the FAA and this reading of it apply to arbitrable contracts under state law, even in cases where the contract is alleged to be illegal or state law provides for administrative dispute resolution. This has been seen as expanding the use of arbitration in contracts in the later 20th century, not only those between businesses but between businesses and consumers as well.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1966 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(6)
Abe FortasWrote the majority opinion
John HarlanWrote a concurrence
Earl WarrenJoined the majority
William BrennanJoined the majority
Byron WhiteJoined the majority
Tom ClarkJoined the majority
Dissent(3)
Hugo BlackWrote a dissent
William DouglasJoined a dissent
Potter StewartJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Prima Paint Corp.Buyer, purchaser
- Respondent
- Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.Seller or vendor
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- 9 U.S.C. § 1
- Kind of law
- Infrequently litigated statutes
- Decided by
- Statutory construction; Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 12, 1967DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: affirmed. Prima Paint Corp. lost.
- Mar 16, 1967ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: petition denied or appeal dismissed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the New York Southern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
27 other argued cases since 1946 on arbitration (other than as pertains to labor-management or employer-employee relations, newest first.
- Flower Foods v. Brock146 S. Ct. 1358May 28, 2026 · 146 S. Ct. 1358Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties608 U.S. 200May 14, 2026 · 608 U.S. 200Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Coinbase v. Suski144 S. Ct. 1186May 23, 2024 · 144 S. Ct. 1186Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski599 U.S. 736Jun 23, 2023 · 599 U.S. 736Economic activity5–45–4 band
- ZF Automotive US v. Luxshare, Ltd.142 S. Ct. 2078Jun 13, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 2078Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Ge Energy Power Conversion France Sas v. Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC140 S. Ct. 1637Jun 1, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 1637Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc.139 S. Ct. 524Jan 8, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 524Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Kindred Nursing Centers v. Clark137 S. Ct. 1421May 15, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 1421Economic activity7–18–1 band
- Directv, Inc. v. Imburgia577 U.S. 47Dec 14, 2015 · 577 U.S. 47Economic activity6–36–3 band
- BG Group PLC v. Republic of Argentina572 U.S. 25Mar 5, 2014 · 572 U.S. 25Economic activity7–27–2 band
- American Express Company, et al., Petitioners v. Italian Colors Restaurant, et al.570 U.S. 228Jun 20, 2013 · 570 U.S. 228Economic activity5–36–3 band
- Oxford Health Plans LLC, Petitioner v. John Ivan Sutter569 U.S. 564Jun 10, 2013 · 569 U.S. 564Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Compucredit Corporation et al. v. Wanda Greenwood et al.565 U.S. 95Jan 10, 2012 · 565 U.S. 95Economic activity8–18–1 band
- AT&T Mobility LLC, Petitioner v. Vincent ConcepcionLandmark · Businesses/Corporations/Contracts563 U.S. 333Apr 27, 2011 · 563 U.S. 333Economic activityLandmark · Businesses/Corporations/Contracts5–45–4 band
- Stolt-Nielsen S. A., et al. v. Animalfeeds International Corp.559 U.S. 662Apr 27, 2010 · 559 U.S. 662Economic activity5–36–3 band
- Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc552 U.S. 576Mar 25, 2008 · 552 U.S. 576Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. John Cardegna et al.546 U.S. 440Feb 21, 2006 · 546 U.S. 440Economic activity7–18–1 band
- Green Tree Financial Corp., Nka Conseco Finance Corp. v. Lynn W. Bazzle et al., in a Representative Capacity on Behalf of a Class and for All Others Similarly Situated, et al.539 U.S. 444Jun 23, 2003 · 539 U.S. 444Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Karen Howsam, etc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.537 U.S. 79Dec 10, 2002 · 537 U.S. 79Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Manuel Kaplan, et ux. and MK Investments, Inc.514 U.S. 938May 22, 1995 · 514 U.S. 938Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Shearson/American Express Inc. et al. v. McMahon et al.482 U.S. 220Jun 8, 1987 · 482 U.S. 220Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Landmark · Businesses/Corporations/Contracts473 U.S. 614Jul 2, 1985 · 473 U.S. 614Economic activityLandmark · Businesses/Corporations/Contracts5–36–3 band
- Thomas, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co. et al.473 U.S. 568Jul 1, 1985 · 473 U.S. 568Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd470 U.S. 213Mar 4, 1985 · 470 U.S. 213Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Southland Corp. et al. v. Keating et al.Landmark · Businesses/Corporations/Contracts465 U.S. 1Jan 23, 1984 · 465 U.S. 1Economic activityLandmark · Businesses/Corporations/Contracts6–36–3 band
- Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co. et al.393 U.S. 145Nov 18, 1968 · 393 U.S. 145Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Moseley, Doing Business As Moseley Plumbing & Heating Co., v. Electronic & Missile Facilities, Inc., et al.374 U.S. 167Jun 17, 1963 · 374 U.S. 167Economic activity8–18–1 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.