source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice Thomas Justice Stevens,

license: Public Domain

text:
    UNITHERM FOOD SYSTEMS, INC. v. SWIFTECKRICH, INC., dba CONAGRA REFRIGERATED FOODS
    No. 04-597.
    Argued November 2, 2005
    Decided January 23, 2006

      Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and O’Connor, Scalia, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Kennedy, J., joined, post, p. 407.

      Burch Bailey argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Greg A. Castro, Jay P. Walters, and Dennis D. Brown.

      Malcolm L. Stewart argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney General Keisler, Deputy Solicitor General Hungar, Mar-leigh Dover, and August Flentje.

      Robert A. Schroeder argued the cause for respondent. With him on the briefs were John R. Reese, Leigh Otsuka Curran, and John P. Passarelli.

   Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Ordinarily, a party in a civil jury trial that believes the evidence is legally insufficient to support an adverse jury verdict will seek a judgment as a matter of law by filing a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) before submission of the case to the jury, and then (if the Rule 50(a) motion is not granted and the jury subsequently decides against that party) a motion pursuant to Rule 50(b). In this case, however, the respondent filed a Rule 50(a) motion before the verdict, but did not file a Rule 50(b) motion after the verdict. Nor did respondent request a new trial under Rule 59. The Court of Appeals nevertheless proceeded to review the sufficiency of the evidence and, upon a finding that the evidence was insufficient, remanded the case for a new trial. Because our cases addressing the requirements of Rule 50 compel a contrary result, we reverse.

I

The genesis of the underlying litigation in this case was ConAgra’s attempt to enforce its patent for “A Method for Browning Precooked Whole Muscle Meat Products,” U. S. Patent No. 5,952,027 (’027 patent). In early 2000, ConAgra issued a general warning to companies who sold equipment and processes for browning precooked meats explaining that it intended to “ ‘aggressively protect all of [its] rights under [the ’027] patent.’” 375 F. 3d 1341, 1344 (CA Fed. 2004). Petitioner Unitherm sold such processes, but did not receive ConAgra’s warning. ConAgra also contacted its direct competitors in the precooked meat business, announcing that it was “ ‘making the ’027 Patent and corresponding patents that may issue available for license at a royalty rate of 100 per pound.’” Id., at 1345. Jennie-O, a direct competitor, received ConAgra’s correspondence and undertook an investigation to determine its rights and responsibilities with regard to the ’027 patent. Jennie-0 determined that the browning process it had purchased from Unitherm was the same as the process described in the ’027 patent. Jennie-0 further determined that the ’027 patent was invalid because Unitherm’s president had invented the process described in that patent six years before ConAgra filed its patent application.

Consistent with these determinations, Jennie-0 and Uni-therm jointly sued ConAgra in the Western District of Oklahoma. As relevant here, Jennie-0 and Unitherm sought a declaration that the ’027 patent was invalid and unenforceable, and alleged that ConAgra had violated §2 of the Sherman Act, ch. 647,26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §2, by attempting to enforce a patent that was obtained by committing fraud on the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). See Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U. S. 172, 174 (1965) (holding that “the enforcement of a patent procured by fraud on the Patent Office may be violative of §2 of the Sherman Act provided the other elements necessary to a §2 case are present”). The District Court construed the ’027 patent and determined that it was invalid based on Unitherm’s prior public use and sale of the process described therein. 35 U. S. C. § 102(b). After dismissing Jennie-0 for lack of antitrust standing, the District Court allowed Unitherm’s Walker Process claim to proceed to trial. Prior to the court’s submission , of the case to the jury, ConAgra moved for a directed verdict under Rule 50(a) based on legal insufficiency of the evidence. The District Court denied that motion. The jury returned a verdict for Unitherm, and ConAgra neither renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b), nor moved for a new trial on antitrust liability pursuant to Rule 59.

On appeal to the Federal Circuit, ConAgra maintained that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s Walker Process verdict. Although the Federal Circuit has concluded that a party’s “failure to present the district court with a post-verdict motion precludes appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence,” Biodex Corp. v. Loredan Biomedical, Inc., 946 F. 2d 850, 862 (1991), in the instant case it was bound to apply the law of the Tenth Circuit, 375 F. 3d, at 1365, n. 7 (“On most issues related to Rule 50 motions . . . we generally apply regional circuit law unless the precise issue being appealed pertains uniquely to patent law”). Under Tenth Circuit law, a party that has failed to file a postverdict motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence may nonetheless raise such a claim on appeal, so long as that party filed a Rule 50(a) motion prior to submission of the case to the jury. Cummings v. General Motors Corp., 365 F. 3d 944, 950-951 (2004). Notably, the only available relief in such a circumstance is a new trial. Id., at 951.

Freed to examine the sufficiency of the evidence, the Federal Circuit concluded that, although Unitherm had presented sufficient evidence to support a determination that ConAgra had attempted to enforce a patent that it had obtained through fraud on the PTO, 375 F. 3d, at 1362, Uni-therm had failed to present evidence sufficient to support the remaining elements of its antitrust claim. Id., at 1365 (“Unitherm failed to present any economic evidence capable of sustaining its asserted relevant antitrust market, and little to support any other aspect of its Section 2 claim”). Accordingly, it vacated the jury’s judgment in favor of Uni-therm and remanded for a new trial. We granted certiorari, 543 U. S. 1186 (2005), and now reverse.

II

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 sets forth the procedural requirements for challenging the sufficiency of the evidence in a civil jury trial and establishes two stages for such challenges — prior to submission of the case to the jury, and after the verdict and entry of judgment. Rule 50(a) allows a party to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence prior to submission of the case to the jury, and authorizes the district court to grant such motions at the court’s discretion:

“(a) Judgment as a Matter op Law.
“(1) If during a trial by jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evi-dentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue, the court may determine the issue against that party and may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against that party with respect to a claim or defense that cannot under the controlling law be maintained or defeated without a favorable finding on that issue.
“(2) Motions for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before submission of the case to the jury. Such a motion shall specify the judgment sought and the law and the facts on which the moving party is entitled to the judgment.”

Rule 50(b), by contrast, sets forth the procedural requirements for renewing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge after the jury verdict and entry of judgment.

“(b) Renewing Motion for Judgment After Trial; Alternative Motion for New Trial. If, for any reason, the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of all the evidence, the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury subject to the court’s later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion. The movant may renew its request for judgment as a matter of law by filing a motion no later than 10 days after entry of judgment — and may alternatively request a new trial or join a motion for a new trial under Rule 59. In ruling on a renewed motion, the court may:
“(1) if a verdict was returned:
“(A) allow the judgment to stand,
“(B) order a new trial, or
“(C) direct entry of judgment as a matter of law ....” .

This Court has addressed the implications of a party’s failure to file a postverdict motion under Rule 50(b) on several occasions and in a variety of procedural contexts. This Court has concluded that, “[i]n the absence of such a motion” an “appellate court [is] without power to direct the District Court to enter judgment contrary to the one it had permitted to stand.” Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., 330 U. S. 212, 218 (1947). This Court has similarly concluded that a party’s failure to file a Rule 50(b) motion deprives the appellate court of the power to order the entry of judgment in favor of that party where the district court directed the jury’s verdict, Globe Liquor Co. v. San Roman, 332 U. S. 571 (1948), and where the district court expressly reserved a party’s preverdict motion for a directed verdict and then denied that motion after the verdict was returned, Johnson v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 344 U. S. 48 (1952). A postverdiet motion is necessary because “[djetermination of whether a new trial should be granted or a judgment entered under Rule 50(b) calls for the judgment in the first instance of the judge who saw and heard the witnesses and has the feel of the case which no appellate printed transcript can impart.” Cone, supra, at 216. Moreover, the “requirement of a timely 'application for judgment after verdict is not an idle motion” because it “is ... an essential part of the rule, firmly grounded in principles of fairness.” Johnson, supra, at 53.

The foregoing authorities lead us to reverse the judgment below. Respondent correctly points out that these authorities address whether an appellate court may enter judgment in the absence of a postverdict motion, as opposed to whether an appellate court may order a new trial (as the Federal Circuit did here). But this distinction is immaterial. This Court’s observations about the necessity of a postverdict motion under Rule 50(b), and the benefits of the district court’s input at that stage, apply with equal force whether a party is seeking judgment as a matter of law or simply a new trial. In Cone, this Court concluded that, because Rule 50(b) permits the district court to exercise its discretion to choose between ordering a new trial and entering judgment, its “appraisal of the bona fides of the claims asserted by the litigants is of great value in reaching a conclusion as to whether anew trial should be granted.” ' 330 U. S., at 216 (emphasis added). Similarly, this Court has determined that a party may only pursue on appeal a particular avenue of relief available under Rule 50(b), namely, the entry of judgment or a new trial, when that party has complied with the Rule’s filing requirements by requesting that particular relief below. See Johnson, supra, at 54 (“Respondent made a motion to set aside the verdict and for new trial within the time required by Rule 50(b). It failed to comply with permission given by 50(b) to move for judgment n. o. v. after the verdict. In this situation respondent is entitled only to a new trial, not to a judgment in its favor”).

Despite the straightforward language employed in Cone, Globe Liquor, and Johnson, respondent maintains that those cases dictate affirmance here, because in each of those cases the litigants secured a new trial. But in each of those cases the appellants moved for a new trial postverdict in the District Court, and did not seek to establish their entitlement to a new trial solely on the basis of a denied Rule 50(a) motion. See Cone, swpra, at 213 (noting that respondent moved for a new trial); Globe Liquor, supra, at 572 (“The respondents ... moved for a new trial on the ground ... that there were many contested issues of fact”). Indeed, Johnson concluded that respondent was only entitled to a new trial by virtue of its motion for such “within the time required by Rule 50(b).” 344 U. S., at 54. Accordingly, these outcomes merely underscore our holding today — a party is not entitled to pursue a new trial on appeal unless that party makes an appropriate postverdict motion in the district court.

Our determination that respondent’s failure to comply with Rule 50(b) forecloses its challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is further validated by the purported basis of respondent’s appeal, namely, the District Court’s denial of respondent’s preverdict Rule 50(a) motion. As an initial matter, Cone, Globe Liquor, and Johnson unequivocally establish that the precise subject matter of a party’s Rule 50(a) motion — namely, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law — cannot be appealed unless that motion is renewed pursuant to Rule 50(b). Here, respondent does not seek to pursue on appeal the precise claim it raised in its Rule 50(a) motion before the District Court — namely, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Rather, it seeks a new trial based on the legal insufficiency of the evidence. But if, as in Cone, Globe Liquor, and Johnson, a litigant that has failed to file a Rule 50(b) motion is foreclosed from seeking the relief it sought in its Rule 50(a) motion — i. e., the entry of judgment — then surely respondent is foreclosed from seeking a new trial, relief it did not and could not. seek in its preverdict motion. In short, respondent never sought a new trial before the District Court, and thus forfeited its right to do so on appeal. Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414, 444 (1944) (“No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a . . . right may be forfeited ... by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it”).

The text of Rule 50(b) confirms that respondent’s prever-dict Rule 50(a) motion did not present the District Court with the option of ordering a new trial. That text provides that a district court may only order a new trial on the basis of issues raised in a preverdict Rule 50(a) motion when “ruling on a renewed motion” under Rule 50(b). Accordingly, even if the District Court was inclined to grant a new trial on the basis of arguments raised in respondent’s preverdict motion, it was without the power to do so under Rule 50(b) absent a postverdict motion pursuant to that Rule. Consequently, the Court of Appeals was similarly powerless.

Similarly, the text and application of Rule 50(a) support our determination that respondent may not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal on the basis of the District Court’s denial of its Rule 50(a) motion. The Rule provides that “the court may determine” that “there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for [a] party on [a given] issue,” and “may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against that party ....” (Emphasis added.) Thus, while a district court is permitted to enter judgment as a matter of law when it concludes that the evidence is legally insufficient, it is not required to do so. To the contrary, the district courts are, if anything, encouraged to submit the case to the jury, rather than granting such motions. As Wright and Miller explain:

“Even at the close of all the evidence it may be desirable to refrain from granting a motion for judgment as a matter of law despite the fact that it would be possible for the district court to do so. If judgment as a matter of law is granted and the appellate court holds that the evidence in fact was sufficient to go to the jury, an entire new trial must be had. If, on the other hand, the trial court submits the case to the jury, though it thinks the evidence insufficient, final determination of the case is expedited greatly. If the jury agrees with the court’s appraisal of. the evidence, and returns a verdict for the party who moved for judgment as a matter of law, the case is at an end. If the jury brings in a different verdict, the trial court can grant a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. Then if the appellate court holds that the trial court was in error in its appraisal of the evidence, it can reverse and order judgment on the verdict of the jury, without any need for a new trial. For this reason the appellate courts repeatedly have said that it usually is desirable to take a verdict, and then pass on the sufficiency of the evidence on a post-verdict motion.” 9A Federal Practice §2533, at 319 (footnote omitted).

Thus, the District Court’s denial of respondent’s preverdict motion cannot form the basis of respondent’s appeal, because the denial of that motion was not error. It was merely an exercise of the District Court's discretion, in accordance with the text of the Rule and the accepted practice of permitting the jury to make an initial judgment about the sufficiency of the evidence. The only error here was counsel’s failure to file a postverdict motion pursuant to Rule 50(b).

* H= *

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that since respondent •failed to renew its preverdict motion as specified in Rule 50(b), there was no basis for review of respondent’s sufficiency of the evidence challenge in the Court of Appeals. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

It is so ordered.

Justice Stevens,

with whom Justice Kennedy joins,

dissenting.

Murphy’s law applies to trial lawyers as well as pilots. Even an expert will occasionally blunder. For that reason Congress has preserved the federal appeals courts’ power to correct plain error, even though trial counsel’s omission will ordinarily give rise to a binding waiver. This is not a case, in my view, in which the authority of the appellate court is limited by an explicit statute or controlling rule. The spirit of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favors preservation of a court’s power to avoid manifestly unjust results in exceptional cases. See Johnson v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 344 U. S. 48, 62 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting) (“ ‘Procedure is the means; full, equal and exact enforcement of substantive law is the end’” (quoting Pound, The Etiquette of Justice, 3 Proceedings Neb. St. Bar Assn. 231 (1909))). Moreover, we have an overriding duty to obey statutory commands that unambiguously express the intent of Congress even in areas such as procedure in which we may have special expertise.

Today, relying primarily on a case decided in March 1947, Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., 330 U. S. 212, and a case decided in January 1948, Globe Liquor Co. v. San Roman, 332 U. S. 571, the Court holds that the Court of Appeals was “powerless” to review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict in petitioner’s favor because respondent failed to file proper postverdict motions pursuant to Rules 50(b) and 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the trial court. Ante, at 405. The majority’s holding is inconsistent with a statute enacted just months after Globe Liquor was decided. That statute, which remains in effect today, provides:

“The Supreme Court or any other court of appellate jurisdiction may affirm, modify, vacate, set aside or reverse any judgment, decree, or order of a court lawfully brought before it for review, and may remand the cause and direct the entry of such appropriate judgment, decree, or order, or require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances.” 28 U. S. C. §2106.

Nothing in Rule 50(b) limits this statutory grant of power to appellate courts; while a party’s failure to make a Rule 50(b) motion precludes the district court from directing a verdict in that party’s favor, the Rule does not purport to strip the courts of appeals of the authority to review district court judgments or to order such relief as “may be just under the circumstances.” Nor do general principles of waiver or forfeiture have that effect. Cf. ante, at 404-405. It is well settled that a litigant’s waiver or forfeiture of an argument does not, in the absence of a contrary statutory command, preclude the courts of appeals from considering those arguments. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U. S. 106, 121 (1976). Arguments raised for the first time on appeal may be entertained, for example, if their consideration would prevent manifest injustice. Ibid.

For the reasons articulated by the Court in Cone, 330 U. S., at 216, it may be unfair or even an abuse of discretion for a court of appeals to direct a verdict in favor of the party that lost below if that party failed to make a timely Rule 50(b) motion. Likewise, it may not be “just under the circumstances” for a court of appeals to order a new trial in the absence of a proper Rule 59 motion. Finally, a court of appeals has discretion to rebuff, on grounds of waiver or forfeiture, a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence absent a proper Rule 50(b) or Rule 59 motion made in the district court. None of the foregoing propositions rests, however, on a determination that the courts of appeals lack “power” to review the sufficiency of the evidence and order appropriate relief under these circumstances, and I can divine no basis for that determination.

I respectfully dissent.

       Petitioner contends that respondent’s Rule 50(a) motion pertained only to the fraud element of petitioner’s Walker Process claim, and that it did not encompass the remaining antitrust elements of that claim. Because we conclude that petitioner is entitled to prevail irrespective of the scope of respondent’s Rule 50(a) motion, we assume without deciding that that motion pertained to all aspects of petitioner’s §2 claim. But see Amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 134 F R. D. 525, 687 (1991) (“A post-trial motion for judgment can be granted only on grounds advanced in the pre-verdict motion”).

       While ConAgra did file a postverdict motion seeking a new trial on antitrust damages, that motion did not seek to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence establishing antitrust liability and thus has no bearing on the instant case.

       Neither Neely v. Martin K. Eby Constr. Co., 386 U. S. 317 (1967), nor Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U. S. 440 (2000), undermine our judgment about the benefit of postverdict input from the district court. In those cases this Court determined that an appellate court may, in certain circumstances, direct the entry of judgment when it reverses the district court’s denial of a Rule 50(b) motion. But in such circumstances the district court will have had an opportunity to consider the propriety of entering judgment or ordering a new trial by virtue of the postverdict motion. Moreover, these cases reiterate the value of the district court’s input, cautioning the courts of appeals to be “‘constantly alert’ to ‘the trial judge’s first-hand knowledge of witnesses, testimony, and issues.’” Id., at 443 (quoting Neely, supra, at 325).

       The dissent’s suggestion that 28 U. S. C. §2106 permits the courts of appeals to consider the sufficiency of the evidence underlying a civil jury verdict notwithstanding a party’s failure to comply with Rule 50 is foreclosed by authority of this Court. While the dissent observes that §2106 was enacted after Cone and Globe Liquor Co. v. San Roman, 332 U. S. 571 (1948), post, at 408 (opinion of Stevens, J.), it fails to note that it was enacted prior to Johnson. Johnson explicitly reaffirmed those earlier cases, concluding that “in the absence of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict made in the trial court within ten days after reception of a verdict [Rule 50] forbids the trial judge or an appellate court to enter such a judgment.” 344 U. S., at 50. Moreover, in Neely, this Court observed that § 2106 is “broad enough to include the power to direct entry of judgment n. o. v. on appeal,” 386 U. S., at 322, but nonetheless reaffirmed that Cone, Globe Liquor, and Johnson “make it clear that an appellate court may not order judgment n. o. v. where the verdict loser has failed strictly to comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 50(b),” 386 U. S., at 325. Contrary to the dissent’s suggestion, Neely confirms that the broad grant of authority to the courts of appeals in § 2106 must be exercised consistent with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as interpreted by this Court.
      The dissent’s approach is not only foreclosed by authority of this Court, it also may present Seventh Amendment concerns. The implication of the dissent’s interpretation of §2106 is that a court of appeals would be free to examine the sufficiency of the evidence regardless of whether the appellant had filed a Rule 50(a) motion in the district court and, in the event the appellant had filed a Rule 50(a) motion, regardless of whether the district court had ever ruled on that motion. The former is squarely foreclosed by Slocum v. New York Life Ins, Co., 228 U. S. 364 (1913), and the latter is inconsistent with this Court’s explanation of the requirements of the Seventh Amendment in Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman, 295 U. S. 654, 658 (1935) (explaining that “under the pertinent rules of the common law the court of appeals could set aside the verdict for error of law, such as the trial court’s ruling respecting the sufficiency of the evidence, and direct a new trial, but could not itself determine the issues of fact and direct a judgment for the defendant, for this would cut off the plaintiff’s unwaived right to have the issues of fact determined by a jury” (emphasis added)). Indeed, Rule 50 was drafted with such concerns in mind. See 9A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §2522, pp. 244-246 (2d ed. 1995) (hereinafter Federal Practice).

       While the precise nature of the new trial motion at issue in Cone is difficult to ascertain from this Court’s description of that motion, the Court of Appeals opinion in that case confirms that the movant had properly objected to the admission of certain evidence, and then moved post-verdict “for a new trial [on the basis of the inadmissible evidence] and later renewed, this motion upon the basis of newly-discovered evidence.” West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. v. Cone, 153 F. 2d 576, 580 (CA4 1946). This Court did not disturb the Court of Appeals’ holding that formed the basis of the movant's entitlement to a new trial, namely, “the Circuit Court of Appeals’ holding that there was prejudicial error in the admission of evidence.” 330 U. S., at 215.

       Respondent claims that its failure to renew its Rule 50(a) motion was in reliance on the Tenth Circuit’s determination that it could order a new trial in the absence of a Rule 50(b) motion. But respondent cannot credibly maintain that it wanted the Court of Appeals to order a new trial as opposed, to entering judgment. And, as the Tenth Circuit has recognized, respondent could not obtain the entry of judgment unless it complied with Rule 50(b). Cummings v. General Motors Corp., 365 F. 3d 944, 951 (2004). Respondent therefore had every incentive to comply with that Rule’s requirements. Accordingly, we reject its contention that our application of Rule 50(b) to the instant case is impermissibly retroactive. See also Harper v. Virginia Dept. of Taxation, 509 U. S. 86, 97 (1993) (“[W]e can scarcely permit the substantive law to shift and spring according to the particular equities of individual parties’ claims of actual reliance on an old rule and of harm from a retroactive application of the new rule” (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)).

       We reject respondent’s contention that it is entitled to a remand for reconsideration in light of Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F. 3d 1303 (CA Fed.2005). The Federal Circuit has already denied respondent’s petition for rehearing raising this issue.

      The Court suggests that the Seventh Amendment limits appellate courts’ power to review judgments under 28 U. S. C. § 2106. See ante, at 402-403, n. 4. I disagree with the Court’s analysis in two respects. First, although the right to trial by jury might be implicated if no Rule 50(a) motion had been made, such a motion was made in this case. The Rule 50(a) motion triggered the automatic reservation of “legal questions,” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 50(b), and that reservation, in turn, averted any Seventh Amendment problem, see Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Red-man, 295 U. S. 654 (1935). Second, the Seventh Amendment imposes no greater restriction on appellate courts than it does on district courts in these circumstances; “[a]s far as the Seventh Amendment’s right to jury trial is concerned, there is no greater restriction on the province of the jury when an appellate court enters judgment n. o. v. than when a trial court does.” Neely v. Martin K. Eby Constr. Co., 386 U. S. 317, 322 (1967).


author: Per Curiam.

text:
    WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC. v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
    No. 04-1581.
    Argued January 17, 2006
    Decided January 23, 2006

      James Bopp, Jr., argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Richard E. Coleson and M. Miller Baker.

      Solicitor General Clement argued the. cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Deputy Solicitor General Garre, Malcolm L. Stewart, Lawrence H. Norton, Richard B. Bader, David Kolker, and Harry J. Summers

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Civil Liberties Union by Steven R. Shapiro, Mark J. Lopez, and Joel M. Gora; for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations by Jonathan P. Hiatt, Laurence E. Gold, and Michael B. Trister; for the Center for Competitive Politics et al. by Erik S. Jaffe; for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America by Jan Witold Baran, Thomas W. Kirby, Caleb P. Burns, Stephen A. Bokat, and Amor D. Sarwal; for Citizens United et al. by Herbert W. Titus, William J. Olson, and John S. Miles; and for Senator Mitch McConnell by Theodore B. Olson and Douglas R. Cox.

        Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for AARP et. al. by Daniel R. Ortiz; for Douglas L. Bailey by Randy L. Dryer; for Frances R. Hill by J. Gerald Hebert; for Senator John McCain et al. by Bradley S. Phillips, Seth P. Waxman, Randolph D. Moss, Roger M. Witten, Fred Wertheimer, Donald J. Simon, Alan Morrison, Charles G. Curtis, Jr., Trevor Potter, Paul Ryan, and Scott L. Nelson; and for Norman Ornstein et al. by H. Christopher Bartolomucci.

      Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the Alliance for Justice by Ruth Eisenberg; and for the Coalition of Public Charities by Robert F. Bauer.

   Per Curiam.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), § 203, as amended, 116 Stat. 91, prohibits corporations from using their general treasury funds to pay for any “electioneering communications.” 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2) (2000 ed., Supp. III). BCRA §201 defines “electioneering communications” as any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that refers to a candidate for federal office and that is broadcast within 30 days of a federal primary election or 60 days of a federal general election in the jurisdiction in which that candidate is running for office. 2 U. S. C. § 434(f)(3) (2000 ed., Supp. III). Appellant Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (WRTL), brought this action against the Federal Election Commission (FEC), seeking a judgment declaring BCRA unconstitutional as applied to several broadcast advertisements that it intended to run during the 2004 election. WRTL also sought a preliminary injunction barring the FEC from enforcing BCRA against those advertisements. WRTL does not dispute that its advertisements are covered by BCRA’s definition of prohibited electioneering communications. Instead, it contends that BCRA cannot be constitutionally applied to its particular communications because they constitute “grassroots lobbying advertisements.” Brief for Ap-pellee 35 (internal quotation marks omitted). Although the FEC has statutory authority to exempt by regulation certain communications from BCRA’s prohibition on electioneering communications, § 434(f)(3)(B)(iv), at this point, it has not done so for the types of advertisements at issue here.

The three-judge District Court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction and subsequently dismissed WRTL’s complaint in an unpublished opinion. We noted probable jurisdiction, 545 U. S. 1164 (2005). Appellant asks us to reverse the judgment of the District Court because that court incorrectly read a footnote in our opinion in McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U. S. 93 (2003), as foreclosing any “as-applied” challenges to the prohibition on electioneering communications. We agree with WRTL that the District Court misinterpreted the relevance of our “uphold[ing] all applications of the primary definition” of electioneering communications. Id., at 190, n. 73. Contrary to the understanding of the District Court, that footnote merely notes that because we found BCRA’s primary definition of “electioneering communication” facially valid when used with regard to BCRA’s disclosure and funding requirements, it was unnecessary to consider the constitutionality of the backup definition Congress provided. Ibid. In upholding §203 against a facial challenge, we did not purport to resolve future as-applied challenges.

The FEC argues that the District Court also rested its decision on the alternative ground that the facts of this case “suggest that WRTL’s advertisements may fit the very type of activity McConnell found Congress had a compelling interest in regulating.” No. 04-1260 (DC, Aug. 17,2004), App. to Juris. Statement 8a. It is not clear to us, however, that the District Court intended its opinion to rest on this ground. For one thing, the court used the word “may.” For another, its separate opinion dismissing WRTL’s challenge with prejudice characterized its previous opinion as holding that “WRTL’s ‘as-applied’ challenge to BCRA is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in McConnell.” Id., at 3a. Given this ambiguity, we cannot say with certainty that the District Court’s dismissal was based on this alternative ground.

We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case for the District Court to consider the merits of WRTL’s as-applied challenge in the first instance.

It is so ordered.


text:
    ALASKA v. UNITED STATES
    No. 128,
    Orig.
    Decided June 6, 2005
    Decree entered January 23, 2006
   The Report of the Special Master is received and ordered filed. The joint motion for entry of decree is granted, and the proposed decree is entered. Gregory E. Maggs, Esq., of Washington, D. C., the Special Master in this case, is hereby discharged with the thanks of the Court. The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

DECREE

On June 12, 2000, the Court granted the State of Alaska leave to file a bill of complaint to quiet title relating to certain marine submerged lands in southeast Alaska. 530 U. S. 1228. The Court appointed a Special Master to direct subsequent proceedings and to submit such reports as he deemed appropriate. 531 U. S. 941 (2000). On January 8, 2001, the Court granted the State of Alaska leave to file an amended complaint. 531 U. S. 1066. On March 5,2001, the Court referred the State of Alaska’s amended complaint and the United States’ answer to the Master. 532 U. S. 902. From 2001 to 2004, the Special Master oversaw extensive briefing of motions for summary judgment relating to the various counts of the amended complaint. On April 26, 2004, the Court received and ordered filed the Report of the Special Master on Six Motions for Partial Summary Judgment and One Motion for Confirmation of a Disclaimer of Title (Mar. 2004). 541 U. S. 1008. On June 6, 2005, this Court overruled the State of Alaska’s exceptions and directed the parties to prepare and submit an appropriate decree to the Master for the Court’s consideration. 545 U. S. 75, 110. The parties have prepared a proposed decree, and the Master recommends its approval.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED

1. On counts I and II of the amended complaint of the State of Alaska, judgment is granted to the United States, and the State of Alaska shall take nothing. As between the State of Alaska and the United States, the United States has title to the marine submerged lands underlying the pockets and enclaves of water at issue in counts I and II of the State of Alaska’s amended complaint, which are those marine submerged lands that are more than three geographical miles from every point on the coastline of the mainland or of any individual island of the Alexander Archipelago. See 545 U. S. 75,80 (2005). For purposes of determining the United States’ title:

(a) the term “marine submerged lands” means all lands permanently or periodically covered by tidal waters up to but not above the line of mean high tide (Submerged Lands Act, § 2(a)(2), 67 Stat. 29 (43 U. S. C. § 1301(a)(2)));
(b) the term “coast line” means “the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters,” as defined in §2(c) of the Submerged Lands Act, ibid. (43 U. S. C. § 1301(c)); and
(c) the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters shall be determined in accordance with the Court’s rulings that: (i) the waters of the Alexander Archipelago do not constitute historic inland waters; and (ii) “North Bay,” “South Bay,” Sitka Sound, and Cordova Bay, as designated in this action, do not constitute juridical bays. See 545 U. S., at 81-96.

2. On count IV of the amended complaint of the State of Alaska, judgment is granted to the United States, and the State of Alaska shall take nothing. As between the State of Alaska and the United States, the United States has title to the marine submerged lands within the exterior boundaries of Glacier Bay National Monument as those boundaries existed on the date of the State of Alaska’s admission to the Union. See 545 U. S., at 96-110. For purposes of determining the United States’ title, the term “marine submerged lands” means all lands permanently or periodically covered by tidal waters up to but not above the line of mean high tide (Submerged Lands Act, § 2(a)(2), 67 Stat. 29 (43 U.S.C. § 1301(a)(2))).

3. The motion of the State of Alaska for summary judgment on count III is dismissed as moot, and count III is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In accordance with 28 U. S. C. §2409a(e), the following disclaimer of the United States is confirmed:

DISCLAIMER
(1) Pursuant to the Quiet Title Act, 28 U. S. C. §24Q9a(e), and subject to the exceptions set out in paragraph (2), the United States disclaims any real property interest in the marine submerged lands within the exterior boundaries of the Tongass National Forest, as those boundaries existed on the date of Alaska Statehood.
(2) The disclaimer set out in paragraph (1) does not disclaim:
(a) any submerged lands that are subject to the exceptions set out in § 5 of the Submerged Lands Act, 67 Stat. 32 (43 U. S. C. § 1313);
(b) any submerged lands that are more than three geographic miles seaward of the coastline;
(c) any submerged lands that were under the jurisdiction of an agency other than the United States Department of Agriculture on the date of the filing of the complaint in this action;
(d) any submerged lands that were held for military, naval, Air Force, or Coast Guard purposes on the date that Alaska entered the Union.
(3) For purposes of this disclaimer:
(a) The term “coast line” means “the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters,” as defined in § 2(c) of the Submerged Lands Act, id., at 29 (43 U. S. C. § 1301(c)).
(b) The term “submerged lands” means “lands beneath navigable waters” as defined in § 2(a) of the Submerged Lands Act, ibid. (43 U. S. C. § 1301(a)).
(c) The term “marine submerged lands” means “all lands permanently or periodically covered by tidal waters up to but not above the line of mean high tide.” See Submerged Lands Act, ibid. § 2(a)(2), (43 U. S. C. § 1301(a)(2)).
(d) The term “jurisdiction” has the meaning of that word in the Quiet Title Act, 28 U. S. C. §2409a(m).
(e) The exception set out in §5(a) of the Submerged Lands Act, 67 Stat. 32 (43 U. S. C. § 1313(a)), for lands “expressly retained by or ceded to the United States when the State entered the Union” does not include lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture unless, on the date Alaska entered the Union, that land was:
(i) withdrawn pursuant to Act of Congress, Presidential Proclamation, Executive Order, or public land order of the Secretary of Interior, other than Presidential Proclamation No. 37, 32 Stat. 2025, which established the Alexander Archipelago Forest Reserve; Presidential Proclamation of Sept. 10,1907 (35 Stat. 2152), which created the Tongass National Forest; or Presidential Proclamations of Feb. 16, 1909 (35 Stat. 2226), and June 10, 1925 (44 Stat. 2578), which expanded the Tongass National Forest; or
(ii) subject to one or more of the following pending applications for withdrawal pursuant to 43 CFR pt. 295 (1954 rev. and Supp. 1958), designated by Bureau of Land Management serial numbers: AKA 022828; AKA 026916; AKA 029820; AKA 031178; AKA 032449; AKA 033871; AKA 034383; AKJ 010461; AKJ 010598; AKJ 010761; AKJ 011157; AKJ 011168; AKJ 011203; AKJ 011210; AKJ 011212; AKJ 011213; AKJ 011291.

4. The Court retains jurisdiction to entertain such further proceedings, enter such orders, and issue such writs as from time to time may be deemed necessary or advisable to effectuate and supplement this Decree and the rights of the respective parties. In all other respects, this Decree is final.


author: Chief Justice Roberts

text:
    GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. O CENTRO ESPIRITA BENEFICENTE UNIAO DO VEGETAL et al.
    No. 04-1084.
    Argued November 1, 2005
    Decided February 21, 2006

      Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion' of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except Auto, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

      Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney General Keisler, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Katsas, Patricia A. Millett, Michael Jay Singer, and Matthew M. Collette.

      Nancy Hollander argued the cause for respondents. With her on the brief were John W. Boyd and Zachary A. Ives

        Marci A, Hamilton filed a brief for the Tort Claimants’ Committee et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.
      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Baptist Joint Committee et al. by Gene C. Schaerr, Linda T. Coberly, Thomas C. Berg, and Gregory S; Baylor; for the Council on Spiritual Practices et al. by David T. Goldberg; for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops by Mark E. Chopko and Jeffrey Hunter Moon; for Dr. John H. Halpem et al. by Roy S. Haber; and for Douglas Laycoek by Mr. haycock, pro se.

      Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the International Academy for Freedom of Religion and Belief et al. by Lee Boothby, Derek Davis, Robert
        A Destro, and W. Cole Durham, Jr.; for the Liberty Legal Institute by Kelly Shackelford; for Various Religious and Civil Rights Organizations by Anthony R. Picarello, Jr.; and for Robert Gable et al. by Peter D. Kennedy.

   Chief Justice Roberts

delivered the opinion of the Court.

A religious sect with origins in the Amazon Rainforest receives communion by drinking a sacramental tea, brewed from plants unique to the region, that contains a hallucinogen regulated under the Controlled Substances Act by the Federal Government. The Government concedes that this practice is a sincere exercise of religion, but nonetheless sought to prohibit the small American branch of the sect from engaging in the practice, on the ground that the Controlled Substances Act bars all use of the hallucinogen. The sect sued to block enforcement against it of the ban on the sacramental tea, and moved for a preliminary injunction.

It relied on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which prohibits the Federal Government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion, unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person” represents the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling interest. 42 U. S. C. §2000bb-l(b). The District Court granted the preliminary injunction, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. We granted the Government’s petition for certiorari. Before this Court, the Government’s central submission is that it has a compelling interest in the uniform application of the Controlled Substances Act, such that no exception to the ban on use of the hallucinogen can be made to accommodate the sect’s sincere religious practice. We conclude that the Government has not carried the burden expressly placed on it by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and affirm the grant of the preliminary injunction.

I

In Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872 (1990), this Court held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not prohibit governments from burdening religious practices through generally applicable laws. In Smith, we rejected a challenge to an Oregon statute that denied unemployment benefits to drug users, including Native Americans engaged in the sacramental use of peyote. Id., at 890. In so doing, we rejected the interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause announced in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398 (1963), and, in accord with earlier cases, see Smith, 494 U. S., at 879-880, 884-885, held that the Constitution does not require judges to engage in a case-by-case assessment of the religious burdens imposed by facially constitutional laws. Id., at 883-890.

Congress responded by enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq., which adopts a statutory rule comparable to the constitutional rule rejected in Smith. Under RFRA, the Federal Government may not, as a statutory matter, substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, “even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” §2000bb-l(a). The only exception recognized by the statute requires the Government to satisfy the compelling interest test — to “demonstrate] that application of the burden to the person — (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” §2000bb-l(b). A person whose religious practices are burdened in violation of RFRA “may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief.” §2000bb-l(c).

The Controlled Substances Act, 84 Stat. 1242, as amended, 21 U. S. C. §801 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. I), regulates the importation, manufacture, distribution, and use of psychotropic substances. The Act classifies substances into five schedules based on their potential for abuse, the extent to which they have an accepted medical use, and their safety. See § 812(b) (2000 ed.). Substances listed in Schedule I of the Act are subject to the most comprehensive restrictions, including an outright ban on all importation and use, except pursuant to strictly regulated research projects. See §§ 823, 960(a)(1). The Act authorizes the imposition of a criminal sentence for simple possession of Schedule I substances, see § 844(a), and mandates the imposition of a criminal sentence for possession “with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense” such substances, see §§ 841(a), (b).

O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal (UDV) is a Christian Spiritist sect based in Brazil, with an American branch of approximately 130 individuals. Central to the UDV’s faith is receiving communion through koasca (pronounced “wass-ca”), a sacramental tea made from two plants unique to the Amazon region. One of the plants, psyckotria viridis, contains dimethyltryptamine (DMT), a hallucinogen whose effects are enhanced by alkaloids from the other plant, banisteriopsis caapi. DMT, as well as “any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, which contains any quantity of [DMT],” is listed in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. § 812(c), Schedule 1(c).

In 1999, United States Customs inspectors intercepted a shipment to the American UDV containing three drums of koasca. A subsequent investigation revealed that the UDV had received 14 prior shipments of koasca. The inspectors seized the intercepted shipment and threatened the UDV with prosecution.

The UDV filed suit against the Attorney General and other federal law enforcement officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that applying the Controlled Substances Act to the UDV’s sacramental use of hoasca violates RFRA. Prior to trial, the UDV moved for a preliminary injunction, so that it could continue to practice its faith pending trial on the merits.

At a hearing on the preliminary injunction, the Government conceded that the challenged application of the Controlled Substances Act would substantially burden a sincere exercise of religion by the UDV. See O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 282 F. Supp. 2d 1236, 1252 (NM 2002). The Government argued, however, that this burden did not violate RFRA, because applying the Controlled Substances Act in this case was the least restrictive means of advancing three compelling governmental interests: protecting the health and safety of UDV members, preventing the diversion of hoasca from the church to recreational users, and complying with the 1971 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances, a treaty signed by the United States and implemented by the Act. Feb. 21, 1971, [1979-1980] 32 U. S. T. 543, T. I. A. S. No. 9725. See 282 F. Supp. 2d, at 1252-1253.

The District Court heard evidence from both parties on the health risks of hoasca and the potential for diversion from the church. The Government presented evidence to the effect that use of hoasca, or DMT more generally, can cause psychotic reactions, cardiac irregularities, and adverse drug interactions. The UDV countered by citing studies documenting the safety of its sacramental use of hoasca and presenting evidence that minimized the likelihood of the health risks raised by the Government. With respect to diversion, the Government pointed to a general rise in the illicit use of hallucinogens, and cited interest in the illegal use of DMT and hoasca in particular; the UDV emphasized the thinness of any market for hoasca, the relatively small amounts of the substance imported by the church, and the absence of any diversion problem in the past.

The District Court concluded that the evidence on health risks was “in equipoise,” and similarly that the evidence on diversion was “virtually balanced.” Id., at 1262, 1266. In the face of such an even showing, the court reasoned that the Government had failed to demonstrate a compelling interest justifying what it acknowledged was a substantial burden on the UDV’s sincere religious exercise. Id., at 1255. The court also rejected the asserted interest in complying with the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, holding that the Convention does not apply to hoasca. Id., at 1266-1269.

The court entered a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Government from enforcing the Controlled Substances Act with respect to the UDV’s importation and use of hoasca. Thp injunction requires the church to import the tea pursuant to federal permits, to restrict control over the tea to persons of church authority, and to warn particularly susceptible UDV members of the dangers of hoasca. See Preliminary Injunction ¶¶2, 5-12, 32-33, App. F to App. to Pet. for Cert. 249a, 250a-252a, 258a-259a. The injunction also provides that “if [the Government] believe[s] that evidence exists that hoasca has negatively affected the health of UDV members,” or “that a shipment of hoasca contain[s] particularly dangerous levels of DMT, [the Government] may apply to the Court for an expedited] determination of whether the evidence warrants suspension or revocation of [the UDV’s authority to use hoasca].’’ Id., at 257a, ¶ 29.

The Government appealed the preliminary injunction and a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed, 0 Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 342 F. 3d 1170 (2003), as did a majority of the Circuit sitting en banc, 389 F. 3d 973 (2004). We granted certiorari. 544 U. S. 973 (2005).

II

Although its briefs contain some discussion of the potential for harm and diversion from the UDV’s use of hoasca, the Government does not challenge the District Court’s factual findings or its conclusion that the evidence submitted on these issues was evenly balanced. Instead, the Government maintains that such evidentiary equipoise is an insufficient basis for issuing a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act. We review the District Court’s legal rulings de novo and its ultimate decision to issue the preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. See McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545 U. S. 844, 867 (2005).

The Government begins by invoking the well-established principle that the party seeking pretrial relief bears the burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits. See, e. g., Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U. S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam); Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U. S. 922, 931 (1975). The Government argues that the District Court lost sight of this principle in issuing the injunction based on a mere tie in the evidentiary record.

A majority of the en banc Court of Appeals rejected this argument, and so do we. Before the District Court, the Government conceded the UDV’s prima facie ease tinder RFRA. See 282 F. Supp. 2d, at 1252 (application of the Controlled Substances Act would (1) substantially burden (2) a sincere (3) religious exercise). The evidence the District Court found to be in equipoise related to two of the compelling interests asserted by the Government, which formed part of the Government’s affirmative defense. See 42 U. S. C. § 2000bb-l(b) (“Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person — (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest...” (emphasis added)); § 2000bb-2(3) (“[T]he term ‘demonstrates’ means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion”). Accordingly, the UDV effectively demonstrated that its sincere exercise of religion was substantially burdened, and the Government failed to demonstrate that the application of the burden to the UDV would, more likely than not, be justified by the asserted compelling interests. See 389 F. 3d, at 1009 (Seymour, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“[T]he balance is between actual irreparable harm to [the] plaintiff and potential harm to the government which does not even rise to the level of a preponderance of the evidence”).

The Government argues that, although it would bear the burden of demonstrating a compelling interest as part of its affirmative defense at trial on the merits, the UDV should have borne the burden of disproving the asserted compelling interests at the hearing on the preliminary injunction. This argument is foreclosed by our recent decision in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U. S. 656 (2004). In Ashcroft, we affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction in a case where the Government had failed to show a likelihood of success under the compelling interest test. We reasoned that “[a]s the Government bears the burden of proof on the ultimate question of [the challenged Act’s] constitutionality, respondents [the movants] must be deemed likely to prevail unless the Government has shown that respondents’ proposed less restrictive alternatives are less effective than [enforcing the Act].” Id., at 666. That logic extends to this case; here the Government failed on the first prong of the compelling interest test, and did not reach the least restrictive means prong, but that can make no difference. The point remains that the burdens at the preliminary injunction stage track the burdens at trial.

The Government attempts to limit the rule announced in Ashcroft to content-based restrictions on speech, but the distinction is unavailing. The fact that Ashcroft involved such a restriction was the reason the Government had the burden of proof at trial under the First Amendment, see id., at 665, but in no way affected the Court’s assessment of the consequences of having that burden for purposes of the preliminary injunction. Here the burden is placed squarely on the Government by RFRA rather than the First Amendment, see 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000bb-l(b), 2000bb-2(3), but the consequences are the same. Congress’s express decision to legislate the compelling interest test indicates that RFRA challenges should be adjudicated in the same manner as constitutionally mandated applications of the test, including at the preliminary injunction stage.

Ill

The Government’s second line of argument rests on the Controlled Substances Act itself. The Government contends that the Act’s description of Schedule I substances as having “a high potential for abuse,” “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,” and “a lack of accepted safety for use ... under medical supervision,” 21 U. S. C. § 812(b)(1), by itself precludes any consideration of individualized exceptions such as that sought by the UDV. The Government goes on to argue that the regulatory regime established by the Act — a “closed” system that prohibits all use of controlled substances except as authorized by the Act itself, see Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U. S. 1, 13 (2005)— “cannot function with its necessary rigor and comprehensiveness if subjected to judicial exemptions.” Brief for Petitioners 18. According to the- Government, there would be no way to cabin religious exceptions once recognized, and “the public will misread” such exceptions as signaling that the substance at issue is not harmful after all. Id., at 23. . Under the Government’s view, there is no need to assess the particulars of the UDV’s use or weigh the impact of an exemption for that specific use, because the Controlled Substances Act serves a compelling purpose and simply admits of no exceptions.

A

RFRA, and the strict scrutiny test it adopted, contemplate an inquiry more focused than the Government’s categorical approach. RFRA requires the Government to demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied through application of the challenged law “to the person” — the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is being substantially burdened. 42 U. S. C. § 2000bb-l(b). RFRA expressly adopted the compelling interest test “as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).” §2000bb(b)(l). In each of those cases, this Court looked beyond broadly formulated interests justifying the general applicability of government mandates and scrutinized the asserted harm of granting specific exemptions to particular religious claimants. In Yoder, for example, we permitted an exemption for Amish children from a compulsory school attendance law. We recognized that the State had a “paramount” interest in education, but held that “despite its admitted validity in the generality of cases, we must searchingly examine the interests that the State seeks to promote . . . and the impediment to those objectives that would flow from recognizing the claimed Amish exemption.” 406 U. S., at 213,221 (emphasis added). The Court explained that the State needed “to show with more particularity how its admittedly strong interest . . . would be adversely affected by granting an exemption to the Amish.” Id., at 236 (emphasis added).

In Sherbert, the Court upheld a particular claim to a religious exemption from a state law denying unemployment benefits to those who would not work on Saturdays, but explained that it was not announcing a constitutional right to unemployment benefits for “all persons whose religious convictions are the cause of their unemployment.” 374 U. S., at 410 (emphasis added). The Court distinguished the case “in which an employee’s religious convictions serve to make him a nonproductive member of society.” Ibid.; see also Smith, 494 U. S., at 899 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment) (strict scrutiny “at least requires a case-by-case determination of the question, sensitive to the facts of each particular claim”). Outside the Free Exercise area as well, the Court has noted that “[cjontext matters” in applying the compelling interest test, Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 306, 327 (2003), and has emphasized that “strict scrutiny does take ‘relevant differences’ into account — indeed, that is its fundamental purpose,” Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200, 228 (1995).

B

Under the more focused inquiry required by RFRA and the compelling interest test, the Government’s mere invocation of the general characteristics of Schedule I substances, as set forth in the Controlled Substances Act, cannot carry the day. It is true, of course, that Schedule I substances such as DMT are exceptionally dangerous. See, e. g., Touby v. United States, 500 U. S. 160, 162 (1991). Nevertheless, there is no indication that Congress, in classifying DMT, considered the harms posed by the particular use at issue here— the circumscribed, sacramental use of hoasca by the UDV. The question of the harms from the sacramental use of hoasca by the UDV was litigated below. Before the District Court found that the Government had not carried its burden of showing a compelling interest in preventing such harms, the court noted that it could not “ignore that the legislative branch of the government elected to place materials containing DMT in Schedule I of the [Act3, reflecting findings that substances containing DMT have ‘a high potential for abuse,’ and ‘no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,’ and that ‘[t]here is a lack of accepted safety for use of [DMT] under medical supervision.’ ” 282 F. Supp. 2d, at 1254. But Congress’ determination that DMT should be listed under Schedule I simply does not provide a categorical answer that relieves the Government of the obligation to shoulder its burden under RFRA.

. This conclusion is reinforced by the Controlled Substances Act itself. The Act contains a provision authorizing the Attorney General to “waive the requirement for registration of certain manufacturers, distributors, or dispensers if he finds it consistent with the public health and safety.” 21 U. S. C. § 822(d). The fact that the Act itself contemplates that exempting certain people from its requirements would be “consistent with the public health and safety” indicates that congressional findings with respect to Schedule I substances should not carry the determinative weight, for RFRA purposes, that the Government would ascribe to them.

And in fact an exception has been made to the Schedule I ban for religious use. For the past 35 years, there has been a regulatory exemption for use of peyote — a Schedule I substance — by the Native American Church. See 21 CFR §1307.31 (2005). In 1994, Congress extended that exemption to all members of every recognized Indian Tribe. See '42 U. S. C. § 1996a(b)(l). Everything the Government says about the DMT in hoasca — that, as a Schedule I substance, Congress has determined that it “has a high potential for abuse,” “has no currently accepted medical use,” and has “a lack of accepted safety for use ... under medical supervision,” 21 U. S. C. § 812(b)(1) — applies in equal measure to the mescaline in peyote,, yet both the Executive and Congress itself have decreed an exception from the Controlled Substances Act for Native American religious use of peyote. If such use is permitted in the face of the congressional findings in § 812(b)(1) for hundreds of thousands of Native Americans practicing their faith, it is difficult to see how those same findings alone can preclude any consideration of a similar exception for the 130 or so American members of the UDV who want to practice theirs. See Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520, 547 (1993) (“It is established in our strict scrutiny jurisprudence that ‘a law cannot be regarded as protecting an interest ‘of the highest order’... when it leaves appreciable damage to that supposedly vital interest unprohibited’” (quoting Florida Star v. B. J. F, 491 U. S. 524, 541-542 (1989) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment))).

The Government responds that there is a “unique relationship” between the United States and the Tribes, Brief for Petitioners 27; see Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535 (1974), but never explains what about that “unique” relationship justifies overriding the same congressional findings on which the Government relies in resisting any exception for the UDV’s religious use of hoasca. In other words, if any Schedule I substance is in fact always highly dangerous in any amount no matter how used, what about the unique relationship with the Tribes justifies allowing their use of peyote? Nothing about the unique political status of the Tribes makes their members immune from the health risks the Government asserts accompany any use of a Schedule I substance, nor insulates the Schedule I substance the Tribes use in religious exercise from the alleged risk of diversion.

The Government argues that the existence of a congressional exemption for peyote does not indicate that the Controlled Substances Act is amenable to judicially crafted exceptions. RFRA, however, plainly contemplates that courts would recognize exceptions — that is how the law works. See 42 U. S. C. § 2000bb-l(c) (“A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government”). Congress’ role in the peyote exemption — and the Executive’s, see 21 CFR § 1307.31 (2005) — confirms that the findings in the Controlled Substances Act do not preclude exceptions altogether; RFRA makes clear that it is the obligation of the courts to consider whether exceptions are required under the test set forth by Congress.

C

The well-established peyote exception also fatally undermines the Government’s broader contention that the Controlled Substances Act establishes a closed regulatory system that admits of no exceptions under RFRA. The Government argues that the effectiveness of the Controlled Substances Act will be “necessarily ... undercut” if the Act is not uniformly applied, without regard to burdens on religious exercise. Brief for Petitioners 18. The peyote exception, however, has been in place since the outset of the Controlled Substances Act, and there is no evidence that it has “undercut” the Government’s ability to enforce the ban on peyote use by non-Indians.

The Government points to some pre-Smith cases relying on a need for uniformity in rejecting claims for religious exemptions under the Free Exercise Clause, see Brief for Petitioners 16, but those cases strike us as quite different from the present one. Those cases did not embrace the notion that a general interest in uniformity justified a substantial burden on religious exercise; they instead scrutinized the asserted need and explained why the denied exemptions could not be accommodated. In United States v. Lee, 455 U. S. 252 (1982), for example, the Court rejected a claimed exception to the obligation to pay Social Security taxes, noting that “mandatory participation is indispensable to the fiscal vitality of the social security system” and that the “tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief.” Id., at 258,260. See also Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U. S. 680, 700 (1989) (same). In Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U. S. 599 (1961) (plurality opinion), the Court denied a claimed exception to Sunday closing laws, in part because allowing such exceptions “might, well provide [the claimants] with an economic advantage over their competitors who must remain closed on that day.” Id., at 608-609. The whole point of a “uniform day of rest for all workers” would have been defeated by exceptions. See Sherbert, 374 U. S., at 408 (discussing Braunfeld). These cases show that the Government can demonstrate a compelling interest in uniform application of a particular program by offering evidence that granting the requested religious accommodations would seriously compromise its ability to administer the program.

Here the Government’s argument for uniformity is different; it rests not so much on the particular statutory program at issue as on slippery-slope concerns that could be invoked in response to any RFRA claim for an exception to a generally applicable law. The Government’s argument echoes the classic rejoinder of bureaucrats throughout history: If I make an exception for you, I’ll have to make one for everybody, so no exceptions. But RFRA operates by mandating consideration, under the compelling interest, test, of exceptions to “rule[s] of general applicability.” 42 U. S. C. § 200Qbb-l(a). Congress determined that the legislated test “is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.” § 2000bb(a)(5). This determination finds support in our cases; in Sherbert, for example, we rejected a slippery-slope argument similar to the one offered in this case, dismissing as “no more than a possibility” the State’s speculation “that the filing of fraudulent claims by unscrupulous claimants feigning religious objections to Saturday work” would drain the unemployment benefits fund. 374 U. S., at 407.

We reaffirmed just last Term the feasibility of case-by-case consideration of religious exemptions to generally applicable rules. In Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709 (2005), we held that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, which allows federal and state prisoners to seek religious accommodations pursuant to the same standard as set forth in RFRA, does not violate the Establishment Clause. We had “no cause to believe” that the compelling interest test “would not be applied in an appropriately balanced way” to specific claims for exemptions as they arose. Id., at 722. Nothing in our opinion suggested that courts were not up to the task.

We do not doubt that there may be instances in which a need for uniformity precludes the recognition of exceptions to generally applicable laws under RFRA. But it would have been surprising to find that this was such a case, given the longstanding exemption from the Controlled Substances Act for religious use of peyote, and the fact that the very reason Congress enacted RFRA was to respond to a decision denying a claimed right to sacramental use of a controlled substance. See 42 U. S. C. § 2000bb(a)(4). And in fact the Government has not offered evidence demonstrating that granting the UDV an exemption would cause the kind of administrative harm recognized as a compelling interest in Lee, Hernandez, and Braunfeld. The Government failed to convince the District Court at the preliminary injunction hearing that health or diversion concerns provide a compelling interest in banning the UDV’s sacramental use of hoasca. It cannot compensate for that failure now with the bold argument that there can be no RFRA exceptions at all to the Controlled Substances Act. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 17 (Deputy Solicitor General statement that exception could not be made even for “rigorously policed” use of “one drop” of substance “once a year”).

IV

Before the District Court, the Government also asserted an interest in compliance with the 1971 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances, Feb. 21, 1971, [1979-1980] 32 U. S. T. 543, T. I. A. S. No. 9725. The Convention, signed by the United States and implemented by the Controlled Substances Act, calls on signatories to prohibit the use of hallucinogens, including DMT. The Government argues that it has a compelling interest in meeting its international obligations by complying with the Convention.

The District Court rejected this interest because it found that the Convention does not cover hoasca. The court relied on the official commentary to the Convention, which notes that “Schedule I [of the Convention] does not list. .. natural hallucinogenic materials,” and that “[p]lants as such are not, and — it is submitted — are also not likely to be, listed in Schedule I, but only some products obtained from plants.” U. N. Commentary on the Convention on Psychotropic Substances 387, 385 (1976). The court reasoned that hoasca, like the plants from which the tea is made, is sufficiently distinct from DMT itself to fall outside the treaty. See 282 F. Supp. 2d, at 1266-1269.

We do not agree. The Convention provides that “a preparation is subject to the same measures of control as the psychotropic substance which it contains,” and defines “preparation” as “any solution or mixture, in whatever physical state, containing one or more psychotropic substances.” See 32 U. S. T., at 546, Art. l(f)(i); id., at 551, Art. 3. Hoasca is a “solution or mixture” containing DMT; the fact that it is made by the simple process of brewing plants in water, as opposed to some more advanced method, does not change that. To the extent the commentary suggests plants themselves are not covered by the Convention, that is of no moment — the UDV seeks to import and use a tea brewed from plants, not the plants themselves, and the tea plainly qualifies as a “preparation” under the Convention.

The fact that hoasca is covered by the Convention, however, does not automatically mean that the Government has demonstrated a compelling interest in applying the Controlled Substances Act, which implements the Convention, to the UDV’s sacramental use of the tea. At the present stage, it suffices to observe that the Government did not even submit evidence addressing the international consequences of granting an exemption for the UDV. The Government simply submitted two affidavits by State Department officials attesting to the general importance of honoring international obligations and of maintaining the leadership position of the United States in the international war on drugs. See Declaration of Gary T. Sheridan (Jan. 24, 2001), App. G to App. to Pet. for Cert. 261a; Declaration of Robert E. Dalton (Jan. 24, 2001), App. H, id., at 265a. We do not doubt the validity of these interests, any more than we doubt the general interest in promoting public health and safety by enforcing the Controlled Substances Act, but under RFRA invocation of such general interests, standing alone, is not enough.

* * *

The Government repeatedly invokes Congress’ findings and purposes underlying the Controlled Substances Act, but Congress had a reason for enacting RFRA, too. Congress recognized that “laws ‘neutral’ toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise,” and legislated “the compelling interest test” as the means for the courts to “strik[e] sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.” 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb(a)(2), (5).

We have no cause to pretend that the task assigned by Congress to the courts under RFRA is an easy one. Indeed, the very sort of difficulties highlighted by the Government here were cited by this Court in deciding that the approach later mandated by Congress under RFRA was not required as a matter of constitutional law under the Free Exercise Clause. See Smith, 494 U. S., at 885-890. But Congress has determined that courts should strike sensible balances, pursuant to a compelling interest test that requires the Government to address the particular practice at issue. Applying that test, we conclude that the courts below did not err in determining that the Government failed to demonstrate, at the preliminary injunction stage, a compelling interest in barring the UDV’s sacramental use of hoasea.

The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

       As originally enacted, RFRA applied to States as well as the Federal Government. In City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507 (1997), we held the application to States to be beyond Congress’ legislative authority under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

       In light of the foregoing, we do not reach the UDV’s argument that Art. 22, ¶ 5, of the Convention should be read to accommodate exceptions under domestic laws such as RFRA.


author: Justice Scalia Justice Thomas,

text:
    BUCKEYE CHECK CASHING, INC. v. CARDEGNA et al.
    No. 04-1264.
    Argued November 29, 2005
    Decided February 21, 2006

      Scaua, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 449. Auto, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

      Christopher Landau argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Amy L. Brown and Pierre H. Bergeron.

      F. Paul Bland, Jr., argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Michael J. Quirk, Arthur H. Bryant, E. Clayton Yates, Christopher C. Casper, and Richard A. Fisher

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al. by Seth P. Waxman, Christopher R. Lipsett, Eric J. Mogilnicki, Robin S. Conrad, and Amor D. Sarwal; for the Community Financial Services Association of America by James T. McIntyre; for the Florida Bankers Association et al. by Erik S. Jaffe; and for the Financial Service Centers of America, Inc., et al. by Gerald Goldman and Robert E. Rockford.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of Florida et al. by Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General of Florida, Christopher M. Rise, Solicitor General, and Erick M. Figlio, Deputy Solicitor General, by Roberto J. Sánchez Ramos, Secretary of Justice of Puerto Rico, and by the Attorneys General for their respective jurisdictions as follows: David W. Márquez of Alaska, Terry Goddard of Arizona, Mike Beebe of Arkansas, Bill Lockyer of California, John Suthers of Colorado, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, M. Jane Brady of Delaware, Robert Spagnoletti of the District of Columbia, Thurbert E. Baker of Georgia, Mark J. Bennett of Hawaii, Lawrence Wasden of Idaho, Lisa Madigan of Illinois, Steve Carter of Indiana, Tom Miller of Iowa, Gregory D. Stumbo of Kentucky, Steve Rowe of Maine, J. Joseph Curran, Jr., of Maryland, Tom Reilly of Massachusetts, Mike Hatch of Minnesota, Jim Hood of Mississippi, Jeremiah W (Jay) Nixon of Missouri, Mike McGrath of Montana, Brian Sandoval of Nevada, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Patricia Madrid of New Mexico, Eliot Spitzer of New York, Roy Cooper of North Carolina, Wayne Stenehjem of North Dakota, Jim Petro of Ohio, Hardy Myers of Oregon, Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania, Patrick Lynch of Rhode Island, Larry Long of South Dakota, Paul Summers of Tennessee, Greg Abbott of Texas, Mark L. Shurtleff of Utah, Rob McKenna of Washington, Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., of West Virginia, Peggy A Lautenschlager of Wisconsin, and Patrick J. Crank of Wyoming; for AARP by Deborah

        Zuckerman and Michael Schuster; for Law Professors by Richard M. Alderman, Brian H. Bix, Robert W. Gordon, Jeffrey W. Stempel, and Katherine V. W. Stone; for the National Association of Consumer Advocates et al. by- Amanda Quester; for the University of Wisconsin Law Professors by David S. Schwartz and Joel Rogers; and for Samuel Glazer by Kenneth D. Schwartz.

      A brief of amicus curiae was filed for Theis Research, Inc., by Paul R. Johnson.

   Justice Scalia

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We decide whether a court or an arbitrator should consider the claim that a contract containing an arbitration provision is void for illegality.

I

Respondents John Cardegna and Donna Reuter entered into various deferred-payment transactions with petitioner Buckeye Check Cashing (Buckeye), in which they received cash in exchange for a personal check in the amount of thie cash plus a finance charge. For each separate transaction they signed a “Deferred Deposit and Disclosure Agreement” (Agreement), which included the following arbitration provisions:

“1. Arbitration Disclosure By signing this Agreement, you agree that i[f] a dispute of any kind arises out of this Agreement or your application therefore or any instrument relating thereto, th[e]n either you or we or third-parties involved can choose to have that dispute resolved by binding arbitration as set forth in Paragraph 2 below....
“2. Arbitration Provisions Any claim, dispute, or controversy . . . arising from or relating to this Agreement ... or the validity, enforceability, or scope of this Arbitration Provision or the entire Agreement (collectively ‘Claim’), shall be resolved, upon the election of you or us or said third-parties, by binding arbitration .... This arbitration Agreement is made pursuant to a transaction involving interstate commerce, and shall be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (‘FAA’), 9 U. S. C. Sections 1-16. The arbitrator shall apply applicable substantive law constraint [sic] with the FA A and applicable statu[t]es of limitations and shall honor claims of privilege recognized by law . . . .” App. 36, 38, 40, 42.

Respondents brought this putative class action in Florida state court, alleging that Buckeye charged usurious interest rates and that the Agreement violated various Florida lending and consumer-protection laws, rendering it criminal on its face. Buckeye moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, holding that a court rather than an arbitrator should resolve a claim that a contract is illegal and void ab initio. The District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Fourth District reversed, holding that because respondents did not challenge the arbitration provision itself, but instead claimed that the entire contract was void, the agree-. ment to arbitrate was enforceable, and the question of the contract’s legality should go to the arbitrator.

Respondents appealed, and the Florida Supreme Court reversed, reasoning that to enforce an agreement to arbitrate in a contract challenged as unlawful “ ‘could breathe life into a contract that not only violates state law, but also is criminal in nature . . . .’” 894 So. 2d 860, 862 (2005) (quoting Party Yards, Inc. v. Templeton, 751 So. 2d 121, 123 (Fla. App. 2000)). We granted certiorari. 545 U. S. 1127 (2005).

II

A

To overcome judicial resistance to arbitration, Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. §§ 1-16. Section 2 embodies the national policy favoring arbitration and places arbitration agreements on equal footing with all other contracts:

“A written provision in ... a contract... to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract ... or an agreement in writing to submit to arbitration an existing controversy arising out of such a contract... shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”

Challenges to the validity of arbitration agreements “upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract” can be divided into two types. One type challenges specifically the validity of the agreement to arbitrate. See, e. g., Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U. S. 1,4-5 (1984) (challenging the agreement to arbitrate as void under California law insofar as it purported to cover claims brought under the state Franchise Investment Law). The other challenges the contract as a whole, either on a ground that directly affects the entire agreement (e. g., the agreement was fraudulently induced), or on the ground that the illegality of one of the contract’s provisions renders the whole contract invalid. Respondents’ claim is of this second type. The crux of the complaint is that the contract as a whole (including its arbitration provision) is rendered invalid by the usurious finance charge.

In Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U. S. 395 (1967), we addressed the question of who — court or arbitrator — decides these two types of challenges. The issue in the case was “whether a claim of fraud in the inducement of the entire contract is to be resolved by the federal court, or whether the matter is to be referred to the arbitrators.” Id., at 402. Guided by §4 of the FA A, we held that “if the claim is fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause itself — an issue which goes to the making of the agreement to arbitrate — the federal court may proceed to adjudicate it. But the statutory language does not permit the federal court to consider claims of fraud in the inducement of the contract generally.” Id., at 403-404 (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted). We rejected the view that the question of “severability” was one of state law, so that if state law held the arbitration provision not to be severable a challenge to the contract as a whole would be decided by the court. See id., at 400, 402-403.

Subsequently, in Southland Corp., we held that the FAA “create[d] a body of federal substantive law,” which was “applicable in state and federal courts.” 465 U. S., at 12 (internal quotation marks omitted). We rejected the view that state law could bar enforcement of §2, even in the context of state-law claims brought in state court. See id., at 10-14; see also Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U. S. 265, 270-273 (1995).

B

Prima Paint and Southland answer the question presented here by establishing three propositions. First, as a matter of substantive federal arbitration law, an arbitration provision is severable from the remainder of the contract. Second, unless the challenge is to the arbitration clause itself, the issue of the contract’s validity is considered by the arbitrator in the first instance. Third, this arbitration law applies in state as well as federal courts. The parties have not requested, and we do not undertake, reconsideration of those holdings. Applying them to this case, we conclude that because respondents challenge the Agreement, but not specifically its arbitration provisions, those provisions are enforceable apart from the remainder of the contract. The challenge should therefore be considered by an arbitrator, not a court.

In declining to apply Prima Paint’s rule of severability, the Florida Supreme Court relied on the distinction between void and voidable contracts. “Florida public policy and contract law,” it concluded, permit “no severable, or salvageable, parts of a contract found illegal and void under Florida law.” 894 So. 2d, at 864. Prima Paint makes this conclusion irrelevant. That case rejected application of state severability rules to the arbitration agreement without discussing whether the challenge at issue would have rendered the contract void or voidable. See 388 U. S., at 400-404. Indeed, the opinion expressly disclaimed any need to decide what state-law remedy was available, id., at 400, n. 3 (though Justice Black’s dissent asserted that state law rendered the contract void, id., at 407). Likewise in Southland, which arose in state court, we did not ask whether the several challenges made there — fraud, misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the California Franchise Investment Law — would render the contract void or voidable. We simply rejected the proposition that the enforceability of the arbitration agreement turned on the state legislature’s judgment concerning the forum for enforcement of the state-law cause of action. See 465 U. S., at 10. So also here, we cannot accept the Florida Supreme Court’s conclusion that enforceability of the arbitration agreement should turn on “Florida public policy and contract law,” 894 So. 2d, at 864.

c

Respondents assert that Prima Paints rule of severability does not apply in state court. They argue that Prima Paint interpreted only §§3 and 4 — two of the FAA’s procedural provisions, which appear to apply by their terms only in federal court — but not § 2, the only provision that we have applied in state court. This does not accurately describe Prima Paint. Although § 4, in particular, had much to do with Prima Paint’s understanding of the rule of sever-ability, see 388 U. S., at 403-404, this rule ultimately arises out of §2, the FAA’s substantive command that arbitration agreements be treated like all other contracts. The rule of severability establishes how this equal-footing guarantee for “a written [arbitration] provision” is to be implemented. Respondents’ reading of Prima Paint as establishing nothing more than a federal-court rule of procedure also runs contrary to Southland’s understanding of that case. One of the bases for Southland’s application of §2 in state court was precisely Prima Paints “reli[ance] for [its] holding on Congress’ broad power to fashion substantive rules under the Commerce Clause.” 465 U. S., at 11; see also Prima Paint, supra, at 407 (Black, J., dissenting) (“[t]he Court here holds that the [FAA], as a matter of federal substantive law ...” (emphasis added)). Southland itself refused to “believe Congress intended to limit the Arbitration Act to disputes subject only to federal-court jurisdiction.” 465 U. S., at 15.

Respondents point to the language of §2, which renders “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable” “a written provision in” or “an agreement in writing to submit to arbitration an existing controversy arising out of” a “contract.” Since, respondents argue, the only arbitration agreements to which §2 applies are those involving a “contract,” and since an agreement void ab initio under state law is not a “contract,” there is no “written provision” in or “controversy arising out of” a “contract,” to which §2 can apply. This argument echoes Justice Black’s dissent in Prima Paint: “Sections 2 and 3 of the Act assume the existence of a valid contract. They merely provide for enforcement where such a valid contract exists.” 388 U. S., at 412-413. We do not read “contract” so narrowly. The word appears four times in § 2. Its last appearance is in the final clause, which allows a challenge to an arbitration provision “upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” (Emphasis added.) There can be no doubt that “contract” as used this last time must include contracts that later prove to be void. Otherwise, the grounds for revocation would be limited to those that rendered a contract voidable — which would mean (implausibly) that an arbitration agreement could be challenged as voidable but not as void. Because the sentence’s final use of “contract” so obviously includes putative contracts, we will not read the same word earlier in the same sentence to have a more narrow meaning. We note that neither Prima Paint nor Southland lends support to respondents’ reading; as we have discussed, neither case turned on whether the challenge at issue would render the contract voidable or void.

* * *

It is true, as respondents assert, that the Prima Paint rule permits a court to enforce an arbitration agreement in a contract that the arbitrator later finds to be void. But it is equally true that respondents’ approach permits a court to deny effect to an arbitration provision in a contract that the court later finds to be perfectly enforceable. Prima Paint resolved this conundrum — and resolved it in favor of the separate enforceability of arbitration provisions. We reaffirm today that, regardless of whether the challenge is brought in federal or state court, a challenge to the validity of the contract as a whole, and not specifically to the arbitration clause, must go to the arbitrator.

The judgment of the Florida Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Auto took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Justice Thomas,

dissenting.

I remain of the view that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. § 1 et seq., does not apply to proceedings in state courts. See Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U. S. 265, 285-297 (1995) (dissenting opinion); Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U. S. 681, 689 (1996) (same); Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U. S. 444, 460 (2003) (same). Thus, in state-court proceedings, the FAA cannot be the basis for displacing a state law that prohibits enforcement of an arbitration clause contained in a contract that is unenforceable under state law. Accordingly, I would leave undisturbed the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court.

       The issue of the contract’s validity is different from the issue whether any agreement between the alleged obligor and obligee was ever concluded. Our opinion today addresses only the former, and does not speak to the issue decided in the cases cited by respondents (and by the Florida Supreme Court), which hold that it is for courts to decide whether the alleged obligor ever signed the contract, Chastain v. Robinson-Humphrey Co., 957 F. 2d 851 (CA11 1992), whether the signor lacked authority to commit the alleged principal, Sandvik AB v. Advent Int’l Corp., 220 F. 3d 99 (CA3 2000); Sphere Drake Ins. Ltd. v. All American Ins. Co., 256 F. 3d 587 (CA7 2001), and whether the signor lacked the mental capacity to assent, Spahr v. Secco, 330 F. 3d 1266 (CA10 2003).

       In pertinent part, §4 reads:
      “A party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration may petition any United States district court [with jurisdiction] ... for an order directing that such arbitration proceed in á manner provided for in such agreement.... [U]pon being satisfied that the making of the agreement for arbitration or the failure to comply therewith is not in issue, the court shall make an order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the agreement....”

       Our more natural reading is confirmed by the use of the word “contract” elsewhere in the United States Code to refer to putative agreements, regardless of whether they are legal. For instance, the Sherman Act, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, states that “[e]very contract, combination ... , or conspiracy, in restraint of trade [is] hereby declared to be illegal.” 15 U. S. C. § 1. Under respondents’ reading of “contract,” a bewildering circularity would result: A contract illegal because it was in restraint of trade would not be a “contract” at all, and thus the statutory prohibition would not apply.