Anthony Ash et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
Decided February 21, 2006. The Court ruled per curiam — an unsigned opinion of the Court.
Docket 05-379 · 546 U.S. 454 (2006) · Cited 447 times
Holding
Regardless of whether it is brought in federal or state court, a challenge to the validity of a contract as a whole, and not specifically to the arbitration clause within it, must go to the arbitrator, not the court.
The Court’s statement of the holding, from the opinion’s syllabus. The syllabus is prepared by the Reporter of Decisions and is not part of the opinion of the Court — read the official opinion for authority.
How the Justices voted
Decided 9–0.
“Concurring” means agreeing with the outcome; any split shown is the Court’s judgment, not each Justice’s reasoning. Source: the Supreme Court Database (Spaeth et al.), Washington University.
Precedents cited
Supreme Court decisions this opinion relies on, ordered by how often it cites each. Cases in our collection link through; others are named.
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · 411 U.S. 792 (1973)
- Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · 450 U.S. 248 (1981)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. · 530 U.S. 133 (2000)
- Patterson v. McLean Credit Union · 491 U.S. 164 (1989)
Official text
Read the official opinion (U.S. Reports, govinfo.gov)
Explore from here
All Supreme Court opinions · The Supreme Court
Source: Supreme Court of the United States, slip opinions (2006). Citation count from the Free Law Project’s CourtListener bulk data. Data last verified 2026-07-03. Informational only; verify against the primary source before relying. Not a consumer report (FCRA).