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
Petitioners argue that Kentucky applies a more demanding rule for a power of attorney to authorize arbitration agreements than for contracts generally.
According to Respondents, respondents note that Kentucky follows common‑law principles in power‑of‑attorney interpretation and is not a uniform‑act state.
Background and question before the Court
According to Justice Ginsburg, the central issue is whether a Kentucky statute that limits a power of attorney’s authority to bind a principal to an arbitration agreement conflicts with the Federal Arbitration Act.
What each side argues
Petitioners' Position
Petitioners contend that Kentucky’s rule for determining a power of attorney’s authority to enter arbitration agreements is distinct and more demanding than the rule for general contracts.
According to Andrew J. Pincus (Petitioner), according to Andrew J. Pincus (Petitioner), they argue that the FAA requires arbitration agreements to be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, and that any limitation must be grounded in recognized legal or equitable grounds for contract revocation.
According to Andrew J. Pincus (Petitioner), according to Andrew J. Pincus (Petitioner), petitioners suggest the Court should apply the objective indicia test, as in *Imburgia*, to assess the true scope of the power of attorney.
Respondents' Position
According to Respondents, respondents emphasize that Kentucky is a common‑law state in the development of its power‑of‑attorney interpretive law and does not follow a uniform power‑of‑attorney act.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument began at 10:22 a.m. before the Supreme Court.
The case was submitted after argument.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
The case addresses how state laws governing powers of attorney intersect with the Federal Arbitration Act, potentially affecting the enforceability of arbitration agreements.
According to Justice Ginsburg, a ruling could clarify whether states may restrict agents from entering arbitration on behalf of principals without violating federal arbitration policy.
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.
- 3b761f97aed27d9976a1-r1-bbe37c5c6d033128.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 25, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.