Southland Corp. et al. v. Keating et al.
In a dispute where 7-Eleven franchisees sued in California state court and the parent company invoked arbitration clauses, the Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act applied to contracts executed under state law.· AI-written
465 U.S. 1 · No. 82-500 · 1983 term · Burger Court
Decided Jan 23, 1984 · argued Oct 4, 1983
Economic activity · Arbitration (other than as pertains to labor-management or employer-employee relations
Landmark · Businesses/Corporations/Contracts
Majority opinion: Warren Burger
The voteMajorityDissent
6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent
3 dissents (6–3)
Reversed and remanded. Southland Corp. et al. won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the California Supreme Court and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Southland Corp. et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave 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.
Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 (1984), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning arbitration. It was originally brought by 7-Eleven franchisees in California state courts, alleging breach of contract by the chain's then parent corporation. Southland pointed to the arbitration clauses in their franchise agreements and said it required disputes to be resolved that way; the franchisees cited state franchising law voiding any clause in an agreement that required franchisees to waive their rights under that law. A 7-2 majority held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applied to contracts executed under state law.
Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote for the majority that it was clearly the intent of Congress in passing the FAA to encourage the use of arbitration as widely as possible, that it enacted "a national policy favoring arbitration." Justice Sandra Day O'Connor dissented, along with William Rehnquist, arguing that the legislative history of the FAA strongly suggested it was intended to apply only to contracts executed under federal law. In later years, Clarence Thomas would make those arguments the foundation of a series of dissents from cases concerning the application of the FAA to state law, even in cases for which O'Connor decided with the majority, citing stare decisis.
The decision was a turning point in the use of arbitration in American contract law, as it was followed with other decisions limiting the authority of states to regulate arbitration. It has been described as "perhaps the most controversial case in the Supreme Court's history of arbitration jurisprudence." Its legal foundation has been examined and disputed, and some critics have found the FAA's legislative history directly contradicts the court's holding. One scholar has even found the decision an unconstitutional infringement of states' power over their own courts. Mandatory prebinding arbitration clauses became widespread, particularly in credit card agreements and other consumer services. Proponents of arbitration pointed to its success in reducing crowded court dockets, but consumer advocates charged that the arbitration process was biased in favor of large corporations and against consumers, many of whom were far poorer and legally unsophisticated. They would be joined in calling unsuccessfully for it to be overturned in a later case by 20 state attorneys general.
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 1983 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(6)
Warren BurgerWrote the majority opinion
Thurgood MarshallJoined the majority
William BrennanJoined the majority
Harry BlackmunJoined the majority
Byron WhiteJoined the majority
Lewis PowellJoined the majority
Dissent(3)
John StevensWrote a dissent
Sandra O'ConnorWrote a dissent
William RehnquistJoined 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
- Southland Corp. et al.Franchiser
- Respondent
- Keating et al.Franchisee
- Reached the Court by
- Appeal (the Court was required 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. § 2
- Kind of law
- Infrequently litigated statutes
- Decided by
- Statutory construction
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.
- Jan 23, 1984DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: reversed and remanded. Southland Corp. et al. won.
- Oct 4, 1983ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the California Supreme Court: affirmed, with a dissent.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the California trial 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
- Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co. et al.393 U.S. 145Nov 18, 1968 · 393 U.S. 145Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.Landmark · Businesses/Corporations/Contracts388 U.S. 395Jun 12, 1967 · 388 U.S. 395Economic activityLandmark · Businesses/Corporations/Contracts6–36–3 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.