This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Granite Rock Company, granite Rock argues that the dispute should be treated as a tort action.
According to Granite Rock Company, granite Rock contends that the contract contains protection that should govern the dispute.
According to Justice Ginsburg, the case raises questions about whether the arbitration clause covers formation or breach of the contract.
Background and question before the Court
Counsel for Granite Rock Company and the Teamsters appeared for the parties.
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether the case is a tort action.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the arbitration clause includes formation or breach of the contract.
Justice Kennedy asked whether the cause of action for interference with a contract has been pre‑empted by state law.
What each side argues
Granite Rock Company
According to Granite Rock Company, granite Rock asserts the action is a tort claim.
According to Granite Rock Company, granite Rock asserts the contract provides protection that governs the dispute.
Teamsters Local 287
According to Teamsters Local 287, teamsters argue that the arbitrator should determine whether the union has a meritorious claim that the contract was not ratified, affecting the no‑strike clause.
What happened at oral argument
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 4db3cd71b514527f8fda-r1-d672f527afc7270a.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.