Vaden v. Discover Bank
| Vaden v. Discover Bank | |
|---|---|
| Decided March 9, 2009 | |
| Full case name | Vaden v. Discover Bank |
| Citations | 556 U.S. 49 (more) |
| Holding | |
| A federal court may consider an FAA §4 petition's underlying controversy to determine whether the controversy "arises under" federal law; however, the underlying controversy must satisfy the well-pleaded complaint rule for the federal court to have jurisdiction over the case. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Ginsberg, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas |
| Concur/dissent | Roberts, joined by Stevens, Breyer, and Alito |
| Laws applied | |
| Federal Arbitration Act | |
Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a federal court may consider a Federal Arbitration Act §4 petition's underlying controversy to determine whether the controversy "arises under" federal law; however, the underlying controversy must satisfy the well-pleaded complaint rule for the federal court to have jurisdiction over the case.