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
The case AT&T Mobility LLC v. Vincent Concepcion was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States.
According to Petitioner (Andrew J. Pincus), according to Petitioner (Andrew J. Pincus), the petitioners argue that a state law may require a particular arbitration procedure provided the same procedure is required in litigation.
Background and question before the Court
Oral argument began before the Supreme Court at 10:02 a.m.
Justice Scalia asked whether a state could deem an arbitration clause unconscionable when it requires distant arbitration and costs the other party.
According to Justice Kagan, justice Kagan inquired about Discover Bank’s citation of the America Online case and its application to both arbitration and litigation.
Justice Sotomayor asked how to distinguish facially neutral contract law defenses that implicitly discriminate against arbitration from those that do not.
Justice Breyer asked “Why, why, why?” during the argument.
Justice Breyer later asked for the respondent’s answer to the specific effort to assimilate the class‑action issue to a discrimination claim.
Justice Alito asked for clarification on a previous hypothetical question.
According to Justice Kagan, justice Kagan questioned whether the test for state interference with arbitration is a purpose test or an effects test.
- [1] 1d5fc185104f89e08fd0-r1-d330bae63973139a.pdf, p. 1
- [2] 1d5fc185104f89e08fd0-r1-d330bae63973139a.pdf, p. 4
- [3] 1d5fc185104f89e08fd0-r1-d330bae63973139a.pdf, p. 9
- [4] 1d5fc185104f89e08fd0-r1-d330bae63973139a.pdf, pp. 35–36
- [5] 1d5fc185104f89e08fd0-r1-d330bae63973139a.pdf, p. 20
- [6] 1d5fc185104f89e08fd0-r1-d330bae63973139a.pdf, p. 39
- [7] 1d5fc185104f89e08fd0-r1-d330bae63973139a.pdf, pp. 44–46
- [8] 1d5fc185104f89e08fd0-r1-d330bae63973139a.pdf, p. 49
What each side argues
Petitioner (AT&T Mobility LLC)
According to Petitioner (Andrew J. Pincus), according to Petitioner (Andrew J. Pincus), the Ninth Circuit held that a state law may mandate a particular arbitration procedure if the same procedure is required in litigation.
Respondent (Vincent Concepcion, et ux.)
The respondents argue that the state law at issue is not preemptive because it aligns with the equal‑footing nondiscrimination principle recognized in Section 2.
According to Respondents, they contend that the savings clause in the Federal Arbitration Act serves two critical purposes, ensuring that contract‑law doctrines preserve consent.
According to Mr. Gupta, mr. Gupta, on behalf of the respondents, concedes that rules requiring arbitration procedures are preempted.
According to Mr. Gupta, he also states that the purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act is to allow parties to tailor their procedures without court interference.
What happened at oral argument
The oral argument was heard before the Supreme Court at 10:02 a.m.
Chief Justice Roberts noted that the case was submitted.
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.
- 1d5fc185104f89e08fd0-r1-d330bae63973139a.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 24, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.