Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc.
The Court unanimously held that the "wholly groundless" exception to arbitrability violated the Federal Arbitration Act, so a valid delegation of arbitrability to an arbitrator must be honored even if a court thinks the argument for arbitration is wholly groundless.· AI-written
141 S. Ct. 656 · No. 19-963 · 2020 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jan 25, 2021 · argued Dec 8, 2020
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Petition denied or appeal dismissed. Henry Schein Inc. lost.
What this ruling means
Dismissed: after hearing the case the Supreme Court declined to decide it, so the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit stands.
Henry Schein Inc. 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.
Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on January 8, 2019. The case decided the question of whether a court may disregard a valid delegation of arbitrability—a contract provision stating that an arbitrator should decide whether a dispute is subject to arbitration—when the argument in favor of arbitration is "wholly groundless." In a unanimous (9-0) opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court sided with petitioner Henry Schein, Inc., holding that the "wholly groundless" exception to arbitrability violates the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.), and therefore a valid delegation of arbitrability should be honored even if a court believes the argument for arbitration to be "wholly groundless." It was Justice Kavanaugh's first Supreme Court opinion.
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 2020 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Sonia SotomayorJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
Elena KaganJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Brett KavanaughJoined the majority
Amy BarrettJoined the majority
Neil GorsuchJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
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
- Henry Schein Inc.Manufacturer
- Respondent
- Archer and White Sales Inc.Distributor
- 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 record codes no legal provision for this case.
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 25, 2021DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: petition denied or appeal dismissed. Henry Schein Inc. lost.
- Dec 8, 2020ArguedArgued · 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, Fifth Circuit.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Texas Eastern 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.
Official record
Read the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.