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 Court further explained that the FAA does not require courts to enforce waivers of substantive rights, because the FAA’s mandate is only to enforce arbitration agreements.
The Court also found that PAGA actions do not present the notice, due‑process, and adequacy‑of‑representation problems that make class arbitration inconsistent with the traditionally individualized form of arbitration.
Background and question before the Court
The question for decision is whether the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., preempts a rule of California law that invalidates contractual waivers of the right to assert representative claims under California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA).
What each side argues
Viking River Cruises, Inc.
According to Viking River Cruises, Inc., according to Viking River Cruises, Inc., viking argues that the outcome is controlled by Supreme Court decisions in Concepcion, Epic, and Lamps Plus, which prevent a state from declaring a statute too important to be relegated to bilateral arbitration.
According to Viking River Cruises, Inc., according to Viking River Cruises, Inc., viking maintains that the arbitration provision bars employees from participating in a class, collective, or PAGA action.
Angie Moriana
Moriana argues that PAGA creates only a substantive cause of action, not a procedural one, and therefore the FAA does not apply to it.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor requested a preemption case where a substantive state cause of action is implicitly preempted.
Justice Barrett asked whether the Court would be bound by Erie based on California courts’ procedural characterization of PAGA.
Justice Alito asked whether the Court is bound by California’s characterization of the PAGA claim.
What the Court decided
The Court held that the FAA preempts the rule of Iskanian insofar as it precludes division of PAGA actions into individual and non‑individual claims through an agreement to arbitrate.
The Court reiterated that the FAA does not require enforcement of waivers of substantive rights; its mandate is limited to enforcing arbitration agreements.
The Court found that PAGA actions do not involve the class‑arbitration problems of notice, due process, and adequate representation.
Justice Thomas dissented, maintaining that the FAA does not apply to proceedings in state courts.
Why it matters
Terms to know
- PAGA
- California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) enlists employees as private attorneys general to enforce California labor law.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 6734b1d30d57a0c0b944-r1-16b68b87cf1e61a2.pdforal argument transcript
- aa782f9cee6b414314a1-r1-04de0530b297067d.pdfopinion
Guide generated September 28, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.