Vaden v. Discover Bank

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2008 1

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is

being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been

prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.

See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

VADEN v. DISCOVER BANK ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07–773. Argued October 6, 2008—Decided March 9, 2009

Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA or Act), 9 U. S. C. §4, au

thorizes a United States district court to entertain a petition to com

pel arbitration if the court would have jurisdiction, “save for [the ar

bitration] agreement,” over “a suit arising out of the controversy

between the parties.”

Discover Bank’s servicing affiliate filed a complaint in Maryland

state court to recover past-due charges from one of its credit card

holders, petitioner Vaden. Discover’s pleading presented a claim

arising solely under state law. Vaden answered and counterclaimed,

alleging that Discover’s finance charges, interest, and late fees vio

lated state law. Invoking an arbitration clause in its cardholder

agreement with Vaden, Discover then filed a §4 petition in Federal

District Court to compel arbitration of Vaden’s counterclaims. The

District Court ordered arbitration.

On Vaden’s initial appeal, the Fourth Circuit remanded the case

for the District Court to determine whether it had subject-matter ju

risdiction over Discover’s §4 petition pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §1331,

which gives federal courts jurisdiction over cases “arising under” fed

eral law. The Fourth Circuit instructed the District Court to conduct

this inquiry by “looking through” the §4 petition to the substantive

controversy between the parties. With Vaden conceding that her

state-law counterclaims were completely preempted by §27 of the

Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA), the District Court expressly

held that it had federal-question jurisdiction and again ordered arbi

tration. The Fourth Circuit then affirmed. The Court of Appeals rec

ognized that, in Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys

tems, Inc., 535 U. S. 826, this Court held that federal-question

jurisdiction depends on the contents of a well-pleaded complaint, and

2 VADEN v. DISCOVER BANK

Syllabus

may not be predicated on counterclaims. It concluded, however, that

the complete preemption doctrine is paramount and thus overrides

the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Held: A federal court may “look through” a §4 petition to determine

whether it is predicated on a controversy that “arises under” federal

law; in keeping with the well-pleaded complaint rule as amplified in

Holmes Group, however, a federal court may not entertain a §4 peti

tion based on the contents of a counterclaim when the whole contro

versy between the parties does not qualify for federal-court adjudica

tion. Pp. 6–21.

(a) Congress enacted the FAA “[t]o overcome judicial resistance to

arbitration,” Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U. S. 440,

443, and to declare “ ‘a national policy favoring arbitration’ of claims

that parties contract to settle in that manner,” Preston v. Ferrer, 552

U. S. ___, ___. To that end, §2 makes arbitration agreements in con

tracts “involving commerce” “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable,”

while §4 provides for federal district court enforcement of those

agreements. The “body of federal substantive law” generated by

elaboration of §2 is equally binding on state and federal courts.

Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U. S. 1, 12. However, the FAA “re

quir[es] [for access to a federal forum] an independent jurisdictional

basis” over the parties’ dispute. Hall Street Associates, L. L. C. v.

Mattel, Inc., 552 U. S. ___, ___. Under the well-pleaded complaint

rule, a suit “arises under” federal law for 28 U. S. C. §1331 purposes

“only when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows

that it is based upon [federal law].” Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v.

Mottley, 211 U. S. 149, 152. Federal jurisdiction cannot be predicated

on an actual or anticipated defense, ibid., or rest upon an actual or

anticipated counterclaim, Holmes Group, 535 U. S. 826. A complaint

purporting to rest on state law can be recharacterized as one “arising

under” federal law if the law governing the complaint is exclusively

federal, see Beneficial Nat. Bank v. Anderson, 539 U. S. 1, 8, but a

state-law-based counterclaim, even if similarly susceptible to rechar

acterization, remains nonremovable. Pp. 6–11.

(b) FAA §4’s text drives the conclusion that a federal court should

determine its jurisdiction by “looking through” a §4 petition to the

parties’ underlying substantive controversy. The phrase “save for

[the arbitration] agreement” indicates that the district court should

assume the absence of the agreement and determine whether it

“would have jurisdiction under title 28” over “the controversy be

tween the parties,” which is most straightforwardly read to mean the

“underlying dispute” between the parties. See Moses H. Cone Memo

rial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U. S. 1, 25, n. 32. Vaden’s

argument that the relevant “controversy” is simply and only the par

Cite as: 556 U. S. ____ (2009) 3

Syllabus

ties’ discrete dispute over the arbitrability of their claims is difficult

to square with §4’s language. If courts are to determine whether they

would have jurisdiction “save for [the arbitration] agreement,” how

can a dispute over an arbitration agreement’s existence or applicabil

ity be the controversy that counts? The Court is unpersuaded that

the “save for” clause means only that the “antiquated and arcane”

ouster notion no longer holds sway. To the extent that the ancient

“ouster” doctrine continued to impede specific enforcement of arbitra

tion agreements, FAA §2, the Act’s “centerpiece provision,” Mitsubi

shi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U. S. 614, 625,

directly attended to the problem by commanding that an arbitration

agreement is enforceable just as any other contract. Vaden’s ap

proach also has curious practical consequences. It would permit a

federal court to entertain a §4 petition only when a federal-question

suit is already before the court, when the parties satisfy the require

ments for diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction, or when the dispute

over arbitrability involves a maritime contract, yet would not ac

commodate a §4 petitioner who could file a federal-question suit in,

or remove such a suit to, federal court, but has not done so. In con

trast, the “look through” approach permits a §4 petitioner to ask a

federal court to compel arbitration without first taking the formal

step of initiating or removing a federal-question suit. Pp. 11–15.

(c) Having determined that a district court should look through a

§4 petition, this Court considers whether the court “would have [fed

eral-question] jurisdiction” over “a suit arising out of the controversy”

between Discover and Vaden. Because §4 does not enlarge federal

court jurisdiction, a party seeking to compel arbitration may gain

such a court’s assistance only if, “save for” the agreement, the entire,

actual “controversy between the parties,” as they have framed it,

could be litigated in federal court. Here, the actual controversy is not

amenable to federal-court adjudication. The “controversy between

the parties” arose from Vaden’s “alleged debt,” a claim that plainly

did not “arise under” federal law; nor did it qualify under any other

head of federal-court jurisdiction. The Fourth Circuit misappre

hended Holmes Group when it concluded that jurisdiction was proper

because Vaden’s state-law counterclaims were completely preempted.

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, a completely preempted coun

terclaim remains a counterclaim, and thus does not provide a key ca

pable of opening a federal court’s door. Vaden’s responsive counter

claims challenging the legality of Discover’s charges are merely an

aspect of the whole controversy Discover and Vaden brought to state

court. Whether one might hypothesize a federal-question suit involv

ing that subsidiary disagreement is beside the point. The relevant

question is whether the whole controversy is one over which the fed

4 VADEN v. DISCOVER BANK

Syllabus

eral courts would have jurisdiction. Section 4 does not give parties li

cense to recharacterize an existing controversy, or manufacture a

new controversy, in order to obtain a federal court’s aid in compelling

arbitration. It is hardly fortuitous that the controversy in this case

took the shape it did. Seeking to collect a debt, Discover filed an en

tirely state-law-grounded complaint in state court, and Vaden chose

to file responsive counterclaims. Section 4 does not invite federal

courts to dream up counterfactuals when actual litigation has defined

the parties’ controversy. Allowing parties to commandeer a federal

court to slice off responsive pleadings for discrete arbitration while

leaving the remainder of the parties’ controversy pending in state

court makes scant sense. Furthermore, the presence of a threshold

question whether a counterclaim alleged to be based on state law is

totally preempted by federal law may complicate the §4 inquiry. Al

though FAA §4 does not empower a federal court to order arbitration

here, Discover is not left without recourse. Because the FAA obliges

both state and federal courts to honor and enforce arbitration agree

ments, Discover may petition Maryland’s courts for appropriate aid

in enforcing the arbitration clause of its contracts with Maryland

credit cardholders. Pp. 15–20.

489 F. 3d 594, reversed and remanded.

GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SCALIA,

KENNEDY, SOUTER, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed an

opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which STEVENS,

BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined.

Cite as: 556 U. S. ____ (2009) 1

Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to

notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash

ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order

that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 07–773

_________________

BETTY E. VADEN, PETITIONER v. DISCOVER

BANK ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

[March 9, 2009]

JUSTICE GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.

Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. §4,

authorizes a United States district court to entertain a

petition to compel arbitration if the court would have

jurisdiction, “save for [the arbitration] agreement,” over “a

suit arising out of the controversy between the parties.”

We consider in this opinion two questions concerning a

district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over a §4 peti

tion: Should a district court, if asked to compel arbitration

pursuant to §4, “look through” the petition and grant the

requested relief if the court would have federal-question

jurisdiction over the underlying controversy? And if the

answer to that question is yes, may a district court exer

cise jurisdiction over a §4 petition when the petitioner’s

complaint rests on state law but an actual or potential

counterclaim rests on federal law?

The litigation giving rise to these questions began when

Discover Bank’s servicing affiliate filed a complaint in

Maryland state court. Presenting a claim arising solely

under state law, Discover sought to recover past-due

charges from one of its credit cardholders, Betty Vaden.

2 VADEN v. DISCOVER BANK

Opinion of the Court

Vaden answered and counterclaimed, alleging that Dis

cover’s finance charges, interest, and late fees violated

state law. Invoking an arbitration clause in its cardholder

agreement with Vaden, Discover then filed a §4 petition in

the United States District Court for the District of Mary

land to compel arbitration of Vaden’s counterclaims. The

District Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over its

petition, Discover maintained, because Vaden’s state-law

counterclaims were completely preempted by federal

banking law. The District Court agreed and ordered

arbitration. Reasoning that a federal court has jurisdic

tion over a §4 petition if the parties’ underlying dispute

presents a federal question, the Fourth Circuit eventually

affirmed.

We agree with the Fourth Circuit in part. A federal

court may “look through” a §4 petition and order arbitra

tion if, “save for [the arbitration] agreement,” the court

would have jurisdiction over “the [substantive] controversy

between the parties.” We hold, however, that the Court of

Appeals misidentified the dimensions of “the controversy

between the parties.” Focusing on only a slice of the par

ties’ entire controversy, the court seized on Vaden’s coun

terclaims, held them completely preempted, and on that

basis affirmed the District Court’s order compelling arbi

tration. Lost from sight was the triggering plea—

Discover’s claim for the balance due on Vaden’s account.

Given that entirely state-based plea and the established

rule that federal-court jurisdiction cannot be invoked on

the basis of a defense or counterclaim, the whole “contro

versy between the parties” does not qualify for federal

court adjudication. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of

Appeals’ judgment.

I

This case originated as a garden-variety, state-law

based contract action: Discover sued its cardholder,

Cite as: 556 U. S. ____ (2009) 3

Opinion of the Court

Vaden, in a Maryland state court to recover arrearages

amounting to $10,610.74, plus interest and counsel fees.1

Vaden’s answer asserted usury as an affirmative defense.

Vaden also filed several counterclaims, styled as class

actions. Like Discover’s complaint, Vaden’s pleadings

invoked only state law: Vaden asserted that Discover’s

demands for finance charges, interest, and late fees vio

lated Maryland’s credit laws. See Md. Com. Law Code

Ann. §§12–506, 12–506.2 (Lexis 2005). Neither party

invoked—by notice to the other or petition to the state

court—the clause in the credit card agreement providing

for arbitration of “any claim or dispute between [Discover

and Vaden],” App. 44 (capitalization and bold typeface

omitted).2

Faced with Vaden’s counterclaims, Discover sought

federal-court aid. It petitioned the United States District

Court for the District of Maryland for an order, pursuant

to §4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA or Act), 9

U. S. C. §4, compelling arbitration of Vaden’s counter

claims.3 Although those counterclaims were framed under

state law, Discover urged that they were governed entirely

by federal law, specifically, §27(a) of the Federal Deposit

——————

1 Discover apparently had no access to a federal forum for its suit

against Vaden on the basis of diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction.

Under that head of federal-court jurisdiction, the amount in contro

versy must “excee[d] . . . $75,000.” 28 U. S. C. §1332(a).

2 Vaden’s preference for court adjudication is unsurprising. The arbi

tration clause, framed by Discover, prohibited presentation of “any

claims as a representative or member of a class.” App. 45 (capitaliza

tion omitted).

3 Section 4 reads, in relevant part:

“A party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of an

other to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration may

petition any United States district court which, save for such agree

ment, would have jurisdiction under title 28, in a civil action or in

admiralty of the subject matter of a suit arising out of the controversy

between the parties, for an order directing that such arbitration pro

ceed in the manner provided for in such agreement.” 9 U. S. C. §4.

4 VADEN v. DISCOVER BANK

Opinion of the Court

Insurance Act (FDIA), 12 U. S. C. §1831d(a). Section 27(a)

prescribes the interest rates state-chartered, federally

insured banks like Discover can charge, “notwithstanding

any State constitution or statute which is hereby pre

empted.” This provision, Discover maintained, was com

pletely preemptive, i.e., it superseded otherwise applicable

Maryland law, and placed Vaden’s counterclaims under

the exclusive governance of the FDIA. On that basis,

Discover asserted, the District Court had authority to

entertain the §4 petition pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §1331,

which gives federal courts jurisdiction over cases “arising

under” federal law.

The District Court granted Discover’s petition, ordered

arbitration, and stayed Vaden’s prosecution of her coun

terclaims in state court pending the outcome of arbitra

tion. App. to Pet. for Cert. 89a–90a. On Vaden’s initial

appeal, the Fourth Circuit inquired whether the District

Court had federal-question jurisdiction over Discover’s §4

petition. To make that determination, the Court of Ap

peals instructed, the District Court should “look through”

the §4 petition to the substantive controversy between the

parties. 396 F. 3d 366, 369, 373 (2005). The appellate

court then remanded the case for an express determina

tion whether that controversy presented “a properly in

voked federal question.” Id., at 373.

On remand, Vaden “concede[d] that the FDIA com

pletely preempts any state claims against a federally

insured bank.” 409 F. Supp. 2d 632, 636 (Md. 2006).

Accepting this concession, the District Court expressly

held that it had federal-question jurisdiction over Dis

cover’s §4 petition and again ordered arbitration. Id., at

634–636, 639. In this second round, the Fourth Circuit

affirmed, dividing 2 to 1. 489 F. 3d 594 (2007).

Recognizing that “a party may not create jurisdiction by

concession,” id., at 604, n. 10, the Fourth Circuit majority

conducted its own analysis of FDIA §27(a), ultimately

Cite as: 556 U. S. ____ (2009) 5

Opinion of the Court

concluding that the provision completely preempted state

law and therefore governed Vaden’s counterclaims.4 This

Court’s decision in Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air

Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U. S. 826 (2002), the major

ity recognized, held that federal-question jurisdiction

depends on the contents of a well-pleaded complaint, and

may not be predicated on counterclaims. 489 F. 3d, at

600, n. 4. Nevertheless, the majority concluded, the com

plete preemption doctrine is paramount, “overrid[ing] such

fundamental cornerstones of federal subject-matter juris

diction as the well-pleaded complaint rule.” Ibid. (quoting

14B C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice

and Procedure §3722.1, p. 511 (3d ed. 1998) (hereinafter

Wright & Miller)).5

The dissenting judge considered Holmes Group disposi

tive. As §27(a) of the FDIA formed no part of Discover’s

complaint, but came into the case only as a result of

Vaden’s responsive pleadings, the dissent reasoned,

“[t]here was no ‘properly invoked federal question’ in the

underlying state case.” 489 F. 3d, at 610.

We granted certiorari, 552 U. S. ___ (2008), in view of

the conflict among lower federal courts on whether district

courts, petitioned to order arbitration pursuant to §4 of

the FAA, may “look through” the petition and examine the

parties’ underlying dispute to determine whether federal

question jurisdiction exists over the §4 petition. Compare

Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation, 463 F. 3d 655, 659 (CA7

——————

4 Our disposition of this case makes it unnecessary to take up the

question of §27(a)’s preemptive force generally or in the particular

context of Discover’s finance charges. We therefore express no opinion

on those issues. Cf. Beneficial Nat. Bank v. Anderson, 539 U. S. 1, 9–10

(2003) (holding that the National Bank Act, 12 U. S. C. §§85, 86,

completely preempts state-law usury claims against national banks).

5 But see 489 F. 3d 594, 612 (CA4 2007) (dissenting opinion) (observ

ing that the passage from Wright & Miller referenced by the majority

“makes clear that the doctrine of complete preemption is exclusively

focused on claims in a plaintiff’s complaint”).

6 VADEN v. DISCOVER BANK

Opinion of the Court

2006) (in determining jurisdiction over a §4 petition, the

court may not “look through” the petition and focus on the

underlying dispute); Smith Barney, Inc. v. Sarver, 108

F. 3d 92, 94 (CA6 1997) (same); Westmoreland Capital

Corp. v. Findlay, 100 F. 3d 263, 267–269 (CA2 1996)

(same); and Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. v. Fitch, 966

F. 2d 981, 986–989 (CA5 1992) (same), with Community

State Bank v. Strong, 485 F. 3d 597, 605–606 (court may

“look through” the petition and train on the underlying

dispute), vacated, reh’g en banc granted, 508 F. 3d 576

(CA11 2007);6 and 396 F. 3d, at 369–370 (case below)

(same).

As this case shows, if the underlying dispute is the

proper focus of a §4 petition, a further question may arise.

The dispute brought to state court by Discover concerned

Vaden’s failure to pay over $10,000 in past-due credit card

charges. In support of that complaint, Discover invoked

no federal law. When Vaden answered and counter

claimed, however, Discover asserted that federal law,

specifically §27(a) of the FDIA, displaced the state laws on

which Vaden relied. What counts as the underlying dis

pute in a case so postured? May Discover invoke §4, not

on the basis of its own complaint, which had no federal

element, but on the basis of counterclaims asserted by

Vaden? To answer these questions, we first review rele

vant provisions of the FAA, 9 U. S. C. §1 et seq., and con

trolling tenets of federal jurisdiction.

II

In 1925, Congress enacted the FAA “[t]o overcome judi

——————

6 In Community State Bank v. Strong, 485 F. 3d 597, 605–606 (CA11

2007), the Court of Appeals approved the “look through” approach as

advanced in circuit precedent. But Judge Marcus, who authored the

court’s unanimous opinion, wrote a special concurrence, noting that,

were he writing on a clean slate, he would reject the “look through”

approach.

Cite as: 556 U. S. ____ (2009) 7

Opinion of the Court

cial resistance to arbitration,” Buckeye Check Cashing,

Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U. S. 440, 443 (2006), and to declare

“ ‘a national policy favoring arbitration’ of claims that

parties contract to settle in that manner,” Preston v. Fer

rer, 552 U. S. ___, ___ (2008) (slip op., at 5) (quoting South

land Corp. v. Keating, 465 U. S. 1, 10 (1984)). To that end,

§2 provides that arbitration agreements in contracts “in

volving commerce” are “valid, irrevocable, and enforce

able.” 9 U. S. C. §2.7 Section 4—the section at issue

here—provides for United States district court enforce

ment of arbitration agreements. Petitions to compel arbi

tration, §4 states, may be brought before “any United

States district court which, save for such agreement,

would have jurisdiction under title 28 . . . of the subject

matter of a suit arising out of the controversy between the

parties.” See supra, at 3, n. 3.8

The “body of federal substantive law” generated by

elaboration of FAA §2 is equally binding on state and

——————

7 Section2 reads, in full:

“A written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract evi

dencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a

controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction, or the

refusal to perform the whole or any part thereof, or an agreement in

writing to submit to arbitration an existing controversy arising out of

such a contract, transaction, or refusal, shall be valid, irrevocable, and

enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the

revocation of any contract.” 9 U. S. C. §2.

8 A companion provision, §3, provides for stays of litigation pending

arbitration. It reads:

“If any suit or proceeding be brought in any of the courts of the

United States upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agree

ment in writing for such arbitration, the court in which such suit is

pending, upon being satisfied that the issue involved in such suit or

proceeding is referable to arbitration under such an agreement, shall on

application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such

arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agree

ment, providing the applicant for the stay is not in default in proceed

ing with such arbitration.” 9 U. S. C. §3.

8 VADEN v. DISCOVER BANK

Opinion of the Court

federal courts. Southland, 465 U. S., at 12 (quoting Moses

H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460

U. S. 1, 25, n. 32 (1983)); accord Allied-Bruce Terminix

Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U. S. 265, 271–272 (1995). “As for

jurisdiction over controversies touching arbitration,”

however, the Act is “something of an anomaly” in the

realm of federal legislation: It “bestow[s] no federal juris

diction but rather requir[es] [for access to a federal forum]

an independent jurisdictional basis” over the parties’

dispute. Hall Street Associates, L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552

U. S. ___, ___ (2008) (slip op., at 4) (quoting Moses H.

Cone, 460 U. S., at 25, n. 32).9 Given the substantive

supremacy of the FAA, but the Act’s nonjurisdictional

cast, state courts have a prominent role to play as enforc

ers of agreements to arbitrate. See Southland, 465 U. S.,

at 15; Moses H. Cone, 460 U. S., at 25, and n. 32.

The independent jurisdictional basis Discover relies

upon in this case is 28 U. S. C. §1331, which vests in

federal district courts jurisdiction over “all civil actions

arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the

United States.” Under the longstanding well-pleaded

complaint rule, however, a suit “arises under” federal law

——————

9 Chapter 2 of the FAA, not implicated here, does expressly grant

federal courts jurisdiction to hear actions seeking to enforce an agree

ment or award falling under the Convention on the Recognition and

Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. See 9 U. S. C. §203 (“An

action or proceeding falling under the Convention shall be deemed to

arise under the laws and treaties of the United States. The district

courts of the United States . . . shall have original jurisdiction over such

an action or proceeding . . . .”). FAA §205 goes further and overrides

the well-pleaded complaint rule pro tanto. 9 U. S. C. §205 (“The proce

dure for removal of causes otherwise provided by law shall apply,

except that the ground for removal provided in this section need not

appear on the face of the complaint but may be shown in the petition

for removal.”). As Vaden points out, these sections demonstrate that

“when Congress wants to expand [federal-court] jurisdiction, it knows

how to do so clearly and unequivocally.” Brief for Petitioner 38.

Cite as: 556 U. S. ____ (2009) 9

Opinion of the Court

“only when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of

action shows that it is based upon [federal law].” Louis

ville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U. S. 149, 152

(1908). Federal jurisdiction cannot be predicated on an

actual or anticipated defense: “It is not enough that the

plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to his cause of

action and asserts that the defense is invalidated by some

provision of [federal law].” Ibid.

Nor can federal jurisdiction rest upon an actual or an

ticipated counterclaim. We so ruled, emphatically, in

Holmes Group, 535 U. S. 826. Without dissent, the Court

held in Holmes Group that a federal counterclaim, even

when compulsory, does not establish “arising under” juris

diction.10 Adhering assiduously to the well-pleaded com

plaint rule, the Court observed, inter alia, that it would

undermine the clarity and simplicity of that rule if federal

courts were obliged to consider the contents not only of the

complaint but also of responsive pleadings in determining

whether a case “arises under” federal law. Id., at 832. See

——————

10 Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535

U. S. 826 (2002), involved 28 U. S. C. §1295(a)(1), which vests in the

Federal Circuit exclusive jurisdiction over “an appeal from a final

decision of a district court . . . if the jurisdiction of that court was based,

in whole or in part, on [28 U. S. C. §]1338.” Section 1338(a), in turn,

confers on district courts “[exclusive] original jurisdiction of any civil

action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents.” The

plaintiff’s complaint in Holmes Group presented a federal claim, but not

one relating to patents; the defendant counterclaimed for patent

infringement. The Court ruled that the case did not “aris[e] under” the

patent laws by virtue of the patent counterclaim, and therefore held

that the Federal Circuit lacked appellate jurisdiction under §1295(a)(1).

See 535 U. S., at 830–832.

In reaching its decision in Holmes Group, the Court first attributed to

the words “arising under” in §1338(a) the same meaning those words

have in §1331. See id., at 829–830. It then reasoned that a counter

claim asserted in a responsive pleading cannot provide the basis for

“arising under” jurisdiction consistently with the well-pleaded com

plaint rule. See id., at 830–832.

10 VADEN v. DISCOVER BANK

Opinion of the Court

also id., at 830 (“[T]he well-pleaded complaint rule, prop

erly understood, [does not] allo[w] a counterclaim to serve

as the basis for a district court’s ‘arising under’ jurisdic

tion.”); Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers

Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U. S. 1, 10–11, and

n. 9 (1983) (“The well-pleaded complaint rule applies to

the original jurisdiction of the district courts as well as to

their removal jurisdiction.”).11

A complaint purporting to rest on state law, we have

recognized, can be recharacterized as one “arising under”

federal law if the law governing the complaint is exclu

sively federal. See Beneficial Nat. Bank v. Anderson, 539

U. S. 1, 8 (2003). Under this so-called “complete preemp

tion doctrine,” a plaintiff’s “state cause of action [may be

recast] as a federal claim for relief, making [its] removal

[by the defendant] proper on the basis of federal question

jurisdiction.” 14B Wright & Miller §3722.1, p. 511.12 A

state-law-based counterclaim, however, even if similarly

susceptible to recharacterization, would remain nonre

——————

11 The Court noted in Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction La

borers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U. S. 1, 10–11, n. 9 (1983),

and in Holmes Group, 535 U. S., at 831, that commentators have

repeatedly suggested Judicial Code revisions under which responsive

pleadings that may be dispositive would count in determining whether

a case “arises under” federal law. See American Law Institute, Study

of the Division of Jurisdiction Between State and Federal Courts §1312,

pp. 188–194 (1969) (discussed in 14B C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper,

Federal Practice and Procedure §3722, pp. 505–507 (3d ed. 1998)

(hereinafter Wright & Miller)); cf. Wechsler, Federal Jurisdiction and

the Revision of the Judicial Code, 13 Law & Contemp. Prob. 216, 233–

234 (1948). Congress, however, has not responded to these suggestions.

12 Recharacterization of an asserted state-law claim as in fact a claim

arising exclusively under federal law, and therefore removable on the

defendant’s petition, of course does not mean that the claim cannot

remain in state court. There is nothing inappropriate or exceptional,

Discover acknowledges, about a state court’s entertaining, and applying

federal law to, completely preempted claims or counterclaims. See Tr.

of Oral Arg. 35.

Cite as: 556 U. S. ____ (2009) 11

Opinion of the Court

movable. Under our precedent construing §1331, as just

explained, counterclaims, even if they rely exclusively on

federal substantive law, do not qualify a case for federal

court cognizance.

III

Attending to the language of the FAA and the above

described jurisdictional tenets, we approve the “look

through” approach to this extent: A federal court may

“look through” a §4 petition to determine whether it is

predicated on an action that “arises under” federal law; in

keeping with the well-pleaded complaint rule as amplified

in Holmes Group, however, a federal court may not enter

tain a §4 petition based on the contents, actual or hypo

thetical, of a counterclaim.

A

The text of §4 drives our conclusion that a federal court

should determine its jurisdiction by “looking through” a §4

petition to the parties’ underlying substantive controversy.

We reiterate §4’s relevant instruction: When one party

seeks arbitration pursuant to a written agreement and the

other resists, the proponent of arbitration may petition for

an order compelling arbitration in

“any United States district court which, save for [the

arbitration] agreement, would have jurisdiction under

title 28, in a civil action or in admiralty of the subject

matter of a suit arising out of the controversy between

the parties.” 9 U. S. C. §4.

The phrase “save for [the arbitration] agreement” indi

cates that the district court should assume the absence of

the arbitration agreement and determine whether it

“would have jurisdiction under title 28” without it. See

396 F. 3d, at 369, 372 (case below). Jurisdiction over

what? The text of §4 refers us to “the controversy between

the parties.” That phrase, the Fourth Circuit said, and we

12 VADEN v. DISCOVER BANK

Opinion of the Court

agree, is most straightforwardly read to mean the “sub

stantive conflict between the parties.” Id., at 370. See

also Moses H. Cone, 460 U. S., at 25, n. 32 (noting in dicta

that, to entertain a §4 petition, a federal court must have

jurisdiction over the “underlying dispute”).13

The majority of Courts of Appeals to address the ques

tion, we acknowledge, have rejected the “look through”

approach entirely, as Vaden asks us to do here. See supra,

at 5–6. The relevant “controversy between the parties,”

Vaden insists, is simply and only the parties’ discrete

dispute over the arbitrability of their claims. She relies,

quite reasonably, on the fact that a §4 petition to compel

arbitration seeks no adjudication on the merits of the

underlying controversy. Indeed, its very purpose is to

have an arbitrator, rather than a court, resolve the merits.

A §4 petition, Vaden observes, is essentially a plea for

specific performance of an agreement to arbitrate, and it

thus presents principally contractual questions: Did the

parties validly agree to arbitrate? What issues does their

agreement encompass? Has one party dishonored the

agreement?

Vaden’s argument, though reasonable, is difficult to

square with the statutory language. Section 4 directs

courts to determine whether they would have jurisdiction

“save for [the arbitration] agreement.” How, then, can a

dispute over the existence or applicability of an arbitration

agreement be the controversy that counts?

——————

13 The parties’ underlying dispute may or may not be the subject of

pending litigation. This explains §4’s use of the conditional “would”

and the indefinite “a suit.” A party often files a §4 petition to compel

arbitration precisely because it does not want to bring suit and litigate

in court. Sometimes, however, a §4 petition is filed after litigation has

commenced. The party seeking to compel arbitration in such cases is

typically the defendant, who claims to be aggrieved by the plaintiff’s

attempt to litigate rather than arbitrate. This case involves the rela

tively unusual situation in which the party that initiated litigation of

the underlying dispute is also the party seeking to compel arbitration.

Cite as: 556 U. S. ____ (2009) 13

Opinion of the Court

The “save for” clause, courts espousing the view em

braced by Vaden respond, means only that the “antiquated

and arcane” ouster notion no longer holds sway. Drexel

Burnham Lambert, Inc. v. Valenzuela Bock, 696 F. Supp.

957, 961 (SDNY 1988). Adherents to this “ouster” expla

nation of §4’s language recall that courts traditionally

viewed arbitration clauses as unworthy attempts to “oust”

them of jurisdiction; accordingly, to guard against en

croachment on their domain, they refused to order specific

enforcement of agreements to arbitrate. See H. R. Rep.

No. 96, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., 1–2 (1924) (discussed in

Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U. S. 213, 219–220,

and n. 6 (1985)). The “save for” clause, as comprehended

by proponents of the “ouster” explanation, was designed to

ensure that courts would no longer consider themselves

ousted of jurisdiction and would therefore specifically

enforce arbitration agreements. See, e.g., Westmoreland,

100 F. 3d, at 267–268, and n. 6 (adopting the “ouster”

interpretation advanced in Drexel Burnham Lambert, 696

F. Supp., at 961–963); Strong, 485 F. 3d, at 631 (Marcus,

J., specially concurring) (reading §4’s “save for” clause “as

instructing the court to ‘set aside’ not the arbitration

agreement . . . , but merely the previous judicial hostility

to arbitration agreements”).

We are not persuaded that the “ouster” explanation of

§4’s “save for” clause carries the day. To the extent that

the ancient “ouster” doctrine continued to impede specific

enforcement of arbitration agreements, §2 of the FAA, the

Act’s “centerpiece provision,” Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v.

Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U. S. 614, 625 (1985),

directly attended to the problem. Covered agreements to

arbitrate, §2 declares, are “valid, irrevocable, and enforce

able, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity

for the revocation of any contract.” Having commanded

that an arbitration agreement is enforceable just as any

other contract, Congress had no cause to repeat the point.

14 VADEN v. DISCOVER BANK

Opinion of the Court

See 1 I. MacNeil, R. Speidel, & T. Stipanowich, Federal

Arbitration Law §9.2.3.3, p. 9:18 (1995) (hereinafter

MacNeil) (“Th[e] effort to connect the ‘save for’ language to

the ancient problem of ‘ouster of jurisdiction’ is imagina

tive, but utterly unfounded and historically inaccurate.”

(footnote omitted)).14

In addition to its textual implausibility, the approach

Vaden advocates has curious practical consequences. It

would permit a federal court to entertain a §4 petition only

when a federal-question suit is already before the court,

when the parties satisfy the requirements for diversity-of

citizenship jurisdiction, or when the dispute over arbitra

bility involves a maritime contract. See, e.g., Westmore

land, 100 F. 3d, at 268–269; 1 MacNeil §9.2.3.1, pp. 9:12–

9:13 (when a federal-question suit has been filed in or

removed to federal court, the court “may order arbitration

under FAA §4”).15 Vaden’s approach would not accommo

date a §4 petitioner who could file a federal-question suit

in (or remove such a suit to) federal court, but who has not

done so. In contrast, when the parties’ underlying dispute

arises under federal law, the “look through” approach

permits a §4 petitioner to ask a federal court to compel

arbitration without first taking the formal step of initiat

ing or removing a federal-question suit—that is, without

seeking federal adjudication of the very questions it wants

to arbitrate rather than litigate. See 1 id., §9.2.3.3, p. 9:21

——————

14 Because “the ouster problem was just as great under state law as it

was under federal,” the absence of “save for” language in contempora

neous state arbitration acts bolsters our conclusion that §4 was not

devised to dislodge the common-law ouster doctrine. 1 I. MacNeil, R.

Speidel, & T. Stipanowich, Federal Arbitration Law §9.2.3.3, p. 9:18

(1995). See also 396 F. 3d 366, 369–370, n. 2 (CA4 2005) (case below).

15 Specific jurisdiction-granting provisions may also authorize a fed

eral court to entertain a petition to compel arbitration. See, e.g., 9

U. S. C. §§203, 205 (providing for federal-court jurisdiction over arbitra

tion agreements covered by the Convention on the Recognition and

Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards).

Cite as: 556 U. S. ____ (2009) 15

Opinion of the Court

(explaining that the approach Vaden advocates “creates a

totally artificial distinction” based on whether a dispute is

subject to pending federal litigation).

B

Having determined that a district court should “look

through” a §4 petition, we now consider whether the court

“would have [federal-question] jurisdiction” over “a suit

arising out of the controversy” between Discover and

Vaden. 9 U. S. C. §4. As explained above, §4 of the FAA

does not enlarge federal-court jurisdiction; rather, it con

fines federal courts to the jurisdiction they would have

“save for [the arbitration] agreement.” See supra, at 7–8.

Mindful of that limitation, we read §4 to convey that a

party seeking to compel arbitration may gain a federal

court’s assistance only if, “save for” the agreement, the

entire, actual “controversy between the parties,” as they

have framed it, could be litigated in federal court. We

conclude that the parties’ actual controversy, here precipi

tated by Discover’s state-court suit for the balance due on

Vaden’s account, is not amenable to federal-court adjudi

cation. Consequently, the §4 petition Discover filed in the

United States District Court for the District of Maryland

must be dismissed.

As the Fourth Circuit initially stated, the “controversy

between the parties” arose from the “alleged debt” Vaden

owed to Discover. 396 F. 3d, at 370. Discover’s complaint

in Maryland state court plainly did not “arise under”

federal law, nor did it qualify under any other head of

federal-court jurisdiction. See supra, at 3, and n. 1.

In holding that Discover properly invoked federal-court

jurisdiction, the Fourth Circuit looked beyond Discover’s

complaint and homed in on Vaden’s state-law-based de

fense and counterclaims. Those responsive pleadings,

Discover alleged, and the Fourth Circuit determined, were

completely preempted by the FDIA. See supra, at 3–4.

16 VADEN v. DISCOVER BANK

Opinion of the Court

The Fourth Circuit, however, misapprehended our deci

sion in Holmes Group. Under the well-pleaded complaint

rule, a completely preempted counterclaim remains a

counterclaim and thus does not provide a key capable of

opening a federal court’s door. See supra, at 8–11. See

also Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U. S. 74, 75–76 (1914)

(“[W]hether a case is one arising under [federal law] . . .

must be determined from what necessarily appears in the

plaintiff’s statement of his own claim . . . , unaided by

anything alleged in anticipation o[r] avoidance of defenses

which it is thought the defendant may interpose.”).

Neither Discover nor THE CHIEF JUSTICE, concurring in

part and dissenting in part (hereinafter dissent), defends

the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning. Instead, the dissent in

sists that a federal court “would have” jurisdiction over

“the controversy Discover seeks to arbitrate”—namely,

“whether ‘Discover Bank charged illegal finance charges,

interest and late fees.’ ” Post, at 1 (quoting App. 30). The

dissent hypothesizes two federal suits that might arise

from this purported controversy: “an action by Vaden

asserting that the charges violate the FDIA, or one by

Discover seeking a declaratory judgment that they do not.”

Post, at 2.

There is a fundamental flaw in the dissent’s analysis: In

lieu of focusing on the whole controversy as framed by the

parties, the dissent hypothesizes discrete controversies of

its own design. As the parties’ state-court filings reflect,

the originating controversy here concerns Vaden’s alleged

debt to Discover. Vaden’s responsive counterclaims chal

lenging the legality of Discover’s charges are a discrete

aspect of the whole controversy Discover and Vaden

brought to state court. Whether one might imagine a

federal-question suit involving the parties’ disagreement

over Discover’s charges is beside the point. The relevant

question is whether the whole controversy between the

parties—not just a piece broken off from that contro

Cite as: 556 U. S. ____ (2009) 17

Opinion of the Court

versy—is one over which the federal courts would have

jurisdiction.

The dissent would have us treat a §4 petitioner’s state

ment of the issues to be arbitrated as the relevant contro

versy even when that statement does not convey the full

flavor of the parties’ entire dispute. Artful dodges by a §4

petitioner should not divert us from recognizing the actual

dimensions of that controversy. The text of §4 instructs

federal courts to determine whether they would have

jurisdiction over “a suit arising out of the controversy

between the parties”; it does not give §4 petitioners license

to recharacterize an existing controversy, or manufacture

a new controversy, in an effort to obtain a federal court’s

aid in compelling arbitration.16

Viewed contextually and straightforwardly, it is hardly

“fortuit[ous]” that the controversy in this case took the

shape it did. Cf. post, at 2. Seeking to collect a debt,

Discover filed an entirely state-law-grounded complaint in

state court, and Vaden chose to file responsive counter

claims. Perhaps events could have unfolded differently,

——————

16 Noting that the FAA sometimes uses “controversy” to refer to the

dispute to be arbitrated, the dissent insists that it must have the same

meaning in §4. Cf. post, at 2–3. But §4 does not ask a district court to

determine whether it would have jurisdiction over “the controversy the

§4 petitioner seeks to arbitrate”; it asks whether the court would have

jurisdiction over “the controversy between the parties.” Here, the issue

Discover seeks to arbitrate is undeniably only a fraction of the contro

versy between the parties. We decline to rewrite the statute to ignore

this reality.

Moreover, our reading of §4 fully accords with the statute’s subjunc

tive construction (“would have jurisdiction”) and its reference to “a

suit.” Cf. post, at 5. Section 4, we recognize, enables a party to seek an

order compelling arbitration even when the parties’ controversy is not

the subject of pending litigation. See supra, at 12, n. 13, 14–15.

Whether or not the controversy between the parties is embodied in an

existing suit, the relevant question remains the same: Would a federal

court have jurisdiction over an action arising out of that full-bodied

controversy?

18 VADEN v. DISCOVER BANK

Opinion of the Court

but §4 does not invite federal courts to dream up counter

factuals when actual litigation has defined the parties’

controversy.17

As the dissent would have it, parties could commandeer

a federal court to slice off responsive pleadings for arbitra

tion while leaving the remainder of the parties’ contro

versy pending in state court. That seems a bizarre way to

proceed. In this case, Vaden’s counterclaims would be

sent to arbitration while the complaint to which they are

addressed—Discover’s state-law-grounded debt-collection

action—would remain pending in a Maryland court.

When the controversy between the parties is not one over

which a federal court would have jurisdiction, it makes

scant sense to allow one of the parties to enlist a federal

court to disturb the state-court proceedings by carving out

issues for separate resolution.18

——————

17Our approach, the dissent asserts, would produce “inconsistent

results” based “upon the happenstance of how state-court litigation has

unfolded.” Post, at 5, 6. Of course, a party’s ability to gain adjudication

of a federal question in federal court often depends on how that ques

tion happens to have been presented, and the dissent’s argument is

little more than a veiled criticism of Holmes Group and the well

pleaded complaint rule. When a litigant files a state-law claim in state

court, and her opponent parries with a federal counterclaim, the action

is not removable to federal court, even though it would have been

removable had the order of filings been reversed. See Holmes Group,

535 U. S., at 831–832.

True, the outcome in this case may well have been different had

Vaden initiated an FDIA claim about the legality of Discover’s charges.

Because that controversy likely would have been amenable to adjudica

tion in a federal forum, Discover could have asked a federal court to

send the parties to arbitration. But that is not what occurred here.

Vaden did not invoke the FDIA. Indeed, she framed her counterclaims

under state law and clearly preferred the Maryland forum. The dis

sent’s hypothesizing about the case that might have been brought does

not provide a basis for federal-court jurisdiction.

18 The dissent observes, post, at 4, that our rule might enable a party

to request a federal court’s aid in compelling arbitration of a state-law

counterclaim that might otherwise be adjudicated in state court. But if

Cite as: 556 U. S. ____ (2009) 19

Opinion of the Court

Furthermore, the presence of a threshold question

whether a counterclaim alleged to be based on state law is

totally preempted by federal law may complicate the

dissent’s §4 inquiry. This case is illustrative. The dissent

relates that Vaden eventually conceded that FDIA §27(a),

not Maryland law, governs the charges and fees Discover

may impose. Post, at 1–2. But because the issue is juris

dictional, Vaden’s concession is not determinative. See

supra, at 4–5, and n. 4. The dissent simply glides by the

preemption issue, devoting no attention to it, although

this Court has not yet resolved the matter.

In sum, §4 of the FAA instructs district courts asked to

compel arbitration to inquire whether the court would

have jurisdiction, “save for [the arbitration] agreement,”

over “a suit arising out of the controversy between the

parties.” We read that prescription in light of the well

pleaded complaint rule and the corollary rule that federal

jurisdiction cannot be invoked on the basis of a defense or

counterclaim. Parties may not circumvent those rules by

asking a federal court to order arbitration of the portion of

a controversy that implicates federal law when the court

would not have federal-question jurisdiction over the

controversy as a whole. It does not suffice to show that a

federal question lurks somewhere inside the parties’ con

troversy, or that a defense or counterclaim would arise

under federal law. Because the controversy between

Discover and Vaden, properly perceived, is not one qualify

ing for federal-court adjudication, §4 of the FAA does not

empower a federal court to order arbitration of that con

troversy, in whole or in part.19

——————

a federal court would have jurisdiction over the parties’ whole contro

versy, we see nothing anomalous about the court’s ordering arbitration

of a state-law claim constituting part of that controversy. Federal

courts routinely exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law

claims. See 28 U. S. C. §1367.

19 This Court’s declaratory judgment jurisprudence in no way under

20 VADEN v. DISCOVER BANK

Opinion of the Court

Discover, we note, is not left without recourse. Under

the FAA, state courts as well as federal courts are obliged

to honor and enforce agreements to arbitrate. Southland,

465 U. S., at 12; Moses H. Cone, 460 U. S., at 25, 26, n. 34.

See also supra, at 7–8. Discover may therefore petition a

Maryland court for aid in enforcing the arbitration clause

of its contracts with Maryland cardholders.

True, Maryland’s high court has held that §§3 and 4 of

the FAA prescribe federal-court procedures and, therefore,

do not bind the state courts.20 But Discover scarcely lacks

an available state remedy. Section 2 of the FAA, which

does bind the state courts, renders agreements to arbitrate

“valid, irrevocable, and enforceable.” This provision “car

ries with it duties [to credit and enforce arbitration

agreements] indistinguishable from those imposed on

federal courts by FAA §§3 and 4.” 1 MacNeil §10.8.1,

p. 10:77. Notably, Maryland, like many other States,

provides a statutory remedy nearly identical to §4. See

Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. §3–207 (Lexis 2006) (“If a

party to an arbitration agreement . . . refuses to arbitrate,

the other party may file a petition with a court to order

——————

cuts our analysis. Cf. post, at 2, 7. Discover, the dissent implies, could

have brought suit in federal court seeking a declaration that its charges

conform to federal law. Again, the dissent’s position rests on its mis

conception of “the controversy between the parties.” Like §4 itself, the

Declaratory Judgment Act does not enlarge the jurisdiction of the

federal courts; it is “procedural only.” Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth,

300 U. S. 227, 240 (1937). Thus, even in a declaratory judgment action,

a federal court could not entertain Discover’s state-law debt-collection

claim. Cf. 10B Wright & Miller §2758, pp. 519–521 (“The Declaratory

Judgment Act was not intended to enable a party to obtain a change of

tribunal from a state to federal court, and it is not the function of the

federal declaratory action merely to anticipate a defense that otherwise

could be presented in a state action.” (footnote omitted)).

20This Court has not decided whether §§3 and 4 apply to proceedings

in state courts, see Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees

of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U. S. 468, 477, n. 6 (1989), and we

do not do so here.

Cite as: 556 U. S. ____ (2009) 21

Opinion of the Court

arbitration. . . . If the court determines that the agree

ment exists, it shall order arbitration. Otherwise it shall

deny the petition.”). See also Walther v. Sovereign Bank,

386 Md. 412, 424, 872 A. 2d 735, 742 (2005) (“The Mary

land Arbitration Act has been called the ‘State analogue

. . . to the Federal Arbitration Act.’ The same policy favor

ing enforcement of arbitration agreements is present in

both our own and the federal acts.” (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted)). Even before it filed its debt

recovery action in a Maryland state court, Discover could

have sought from that court an order compelling arbitra

tion of any agreement-related dispute between itself and

cardholder Vaden. At no time was federal-court interven

tion needed to place the controversy between the parties

before an arbitrator.

* * *

For the reasons stated, the District Court lacked juris

diction to entertain Discover’s §4 petition to compel arbi

tration. The judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming

the District Court’s order is therefore reversed, and the

case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with

this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Cite as: 556 U. S. ____ (2009) 1

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 07–773

_________________

BETTY E. VADEN, PETITIONER v. DISCOVER

BANK ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

[March 9, 2009]

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS,

JUSTICE BREYER, and JUSTICE ALITO join, concurring in

part and dissenting in part.

I agree with the Court that a federal court asked to

compel arbitration pursuant to §4 of the Federal Arbitra

tion Act should “look through” the dispute over arbitrabil

ity in determining whether it has jurisdiction to grant the

requested relief. But look through to what? The statute

provides a clear and sensible answer: The court may con

sider the §4 petition if the court “would have” jurisdiction

over “the subject matter of a suit arising out of the contro

versy between the parties.” 9 U. S. C. §4.

The §4 petition in this case explains that the contro

versy Discover seeks to arbitrate is whether “Discover

Bank charged illegal finance charges, interest and late

fees.” App. 30. Discover contends in its petition that the

resolution of this dispute is controlled by federal law—

specifically §27(a) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act

(FDIA), 12 U. S. C. §1831d(a) (setting forth the interest

rates a state-chartered, federally insured bank may

charge “notwithstanding any State constitution or stat

ute which is hereby preempted”). Vaden agrees that the

legality of Discover’s charges and fees is governed by

2 VADEN v. DISCOVER BANK

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.

the FDIA.* A federal court therefore “would have juris

diction . . . of the subject matter of a suit arising out of

the controversy” Discover seeks to arbitrate. That suit

could be an action by Vaden asserting that the charges

violate the FDIA, or one by Discover seeking a declara

tory judgment that they do not.

The majority is diverted off this straightforward path by

the fortuity that a complaint happens to have been filed in

this case. Instead of looking to the controversy the §4

petitioner seeks to arbitrate, the majority focuses on the

controversy underlying that complaint, and asks whether

“the whole controversy,” as reflected in “the parties’ state

court filings,” arises under federal law. Ante, at 16 (em

phasis added). Because that litigation was commenced as

a state-law debt-collection claim, the majority concludes

there is no §4 jurisdiction.

This approach is contrary to the language of §4, and

sharply restricts the ability of federal courts to enforce

agreements to arbitrate. The “controversy” to which §4

refers is the dispute alleged to be subject to arbitration.

The §4 petitioner must set forth the nature of that dis

pute—the one he seeks to arbitrate—in the §4 petition

seeking an order to compel arbitration. Section 4 requires

that the petitioner be “aggrieved” by the other party’s

“failure, neglect, or refusal . . . to arbitrate under a written

agreement for arbitration”; that language guides the

district court to the specific controversy the other party is

unwilling to arbitrate.

That is clear from the FAA’s repeated and consistent

——————

* Vaden has conceded that the FDIA completely pre-empts her state

law counterclaims. See 489 F. 3d 594, 604, n. 10 (CA4 2007). What is

significant about that concession is not Vaden’s agreement on the

jurisdictional question of complete pre-emption (which we need not and

do not address), cf. ante, at 19, but rather her agreement that federal

law—the FDIA—governs her allegation that Discover’s charges and

fees are illegal.

Cite as: 556 U. S. ____ (2009) 3

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.

use of the term “controversy” to mean the specific dispute

asserted to be subject to arbitration, not to some broader,

“full flavor[ed]” or “full-bodied” notion of the disagreement

between the parties. Ante, at 17, and n. 16. In §2, for

example, the “controversy” is the one “to [be] settle[d] by

arbitration” and the one “to [be] submit[ted] to

arbitration.” 9 U. S. C. §2. In §10(a)(3), it is a ground for

vacating an arbitration award that the arbitrator refused

to hear evidence “pertinent and material to the

controversy”—obviously the “controversy” subject to

arbitration, or the arbitrator’s refusal to consider the

evidence would hardly be objectionable. In §11(c), an

award may be modified if “imperfect in matter of form not

affecting the merits of the controversy”—again, necessar

ily the controversy submitted to arbitration, and therefore

the subject of the award.

There is no reason to suppose “controversy” meant the

controversy subject to arbitration everywhere else in the

FAA, but something quite different in §4. The issue is

whether there is jurisdiction to compel arbitration to

resolve a controversy; why would the pertinent contro

versy for assessing jurisdiction be anything other than the

same one asserted to be subject to arbitration?

The majority looks instead to the controversy the state

court litigation seeks to resolve. This produces the odd

result of defining “controversy” more broadly than the §4

petition itself. Discover’s petition does not seek to

arbitrate its state-law debt-collection claims, but rather

Vaden’s allegation that the fees Discover has been

charging her (and other members of her proposed class)

violate the FDIA. See App. 30. The majority does not

appear to question that there would be federal jurisdiction

over a suit arising out of the subject matter of that

dispute. The majority finds no jurisdiction here, however,

because “a federal court could not entertain Discover’s

state-law debt-collection claim.” Ante, at 20, n. 19. There

4 VADEN v. DISCOVER BANK

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.

is no jurisdiction to compel arbitration of a plainly federal

controversy—the FDIA dispute—because there is no juris

diction to compel arbitration of the debt-collection dispute.

But why Discover should have to demonstrate federal

jurisdiction over a state-court claim it does not seek to

arbitrate is a mystery. Cf. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hos

pital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U. S. 1, 19–21 (1983)

(affirming federal-court jurisdiction over a §4 petition

seeking to arbitrate only one of two disputes pending in

state-court litigation); Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd,

470 U. S. 213, 218–221 (1985) (when litigation involves

multiple claims, only some of which are covered by an

arbitration agreement, district court must compel arbitra

tion of the covered claims if so requested).

The majority’s approach will allow federal jurisdiction to

compel arbitration of entirely state-law claims. Under

that approach the “controversy” is not the one the §4

petitioner seeks to arbitrate, but a broader one encom

passing the “whole controversy” between the parties.

Ante, at 16. If that broader dispute involves both fed

eral and state-law claims, and the “originating” dispute

is federal, ibid., a party could seek arbitration of just

the state-law claims. The “controversy” under the ma

jority’s view would qualify as federal, giving rise to §4

jurisdiction to compel arbitration of a purely state-law

claim.

Take this case as an example. If Vaden had filed her

FDIA claim first, and Discover had responded with a

state-law debt-collection counterclaim, that suit is one

that “could be litigated in federal court.” Ante, at 15. As a

result, the majority’s approach would seem to permit

Vaden to file a §4 petition to compel arbitration of the

entirely state-law-based debt-collection dispute, because

that dispute would be part and parcel of the “full fla

vor[ed],” “originating” FDIA controversy. Ante, at 16, 17.

Defining the controversy as the dispute the §4 petitioner

Cite as: 556 U. S. ____ (2009) 5

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.

seeks to arbitrate eliminates this problem by ensuring

that the actual dispute subject to arbitration is federal.

The majority’s conclusion that this controversy “is not

one qualifying for federal-court adjudication,” ante, at 19,

stems from its mistaken focus on the existing litigation.

Rather than ask whether a court “would have” jurisdiction

over the “subject matter” of “a” suit arising out of the

“controversy,” the majority asks only whether the court

does have jurisdiction over the subject matter of a par

ticular complaint. But §4 does not speak of actual juris

diction over pending suits; it speaks subjunctively of

prospective jurisdiction over “the subject matter of a suit

arising out of the controversy between the parties.” 9

U. S. C. §4. The fact that Vaden has chosen to package

the FDIA controversy in counterclaims in pending state

court litigation in no way means that a district court

“would [not] have” jurisdiction over the “subject matter”

of “a suit” arising out of the FDIA controversy. A big part

of arbitration is avoiding the procedural niceties of for

mal litigation; it would be odd to have the authority of a

court to compel arbitration hinge on just such niceties in

a pending case.

By focusing on the sequence in which state-court litiga

tion has unfolded, the majority crafts a rule that pro

duces inconsistent results. Because Discover’s debt

collection claim was filed before Vaden’s counterclaims,

the majority treats the debt-collection dispute as the

“originating controversy.” Ante, at 16. But nothing

would have prevented the same disagreements between

the parties from producing a different sequence of events.

Vaden could have filed a complaint raising her FDIA

claims before Discover sought to collect on any amounts

Vaden owes. Because the “originating controversy” in

that complaint would be whether Discover has charged

fees illegal under federal law, in that situation Discover

presumably could bring a §4 petition to compel arbitration

6 VADEN v. DISCOVER BANK

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.

of the FDIA dispute. The majority’s rule thus makes §4

jurisdiction over the same controversy entirely dependent

upon the happenstance of how state-court litigation has

unfolded. Nothing in §4 suggests such a result.

The majority glosses over another problem inherent in

its approach: In many if not most cases under §4, no com

plaint will have been filed. See Hartford Financial Sys

tems, Inc. v. Florida Software Servs., Inc., 712 F. 2d 724,

728 (CA1 1983) (Breyer, J.) (“Normally, [§4] motions are

brought in independent proceedings”). What to “look

through” to then? The majority instructs courts to look to

the “full-bodied controversy.” Ante, at 17, n. 16. But as

this case illustrates, that would lead to a different result

had the state-court complaint not been filed. Discover

does not seek to arbitrate whether an outstanding debt

exists; indeed, Discover’s §4 petition does not even allege

any dispute on that point. See App. 28–41. A district

court would therefore not understand the §4 “controversy”

to include the debt-collection claim in the absence of the

state-court suit. Under the majority’s rule, the FDIA

dispute would be treated as a “controversy” qualifying

under §4 before the state suit and counterclaims had been

filed, but not after.

The far more concrete and administrable approach

would be to apply the same rule in all instances: Look to

the controversy the §4 petitioner seeks to arbitrate—as set

forth in the §4 petition—and assess whether a federal

court would have jurisdiction over the subject matter of a

suit arising out of that controversy. The controversy the

moving party seeks to arbitrate and the other party will

not would be the same controversy used to assess jurisdic

tion to compel arbitration.

The majority objects that this would allow a court to

“hypothesiz[e] discrete controversies of its own design,”

ante, at 16, in an apparent effort to find federal

jurisdiction where there is none. Not so. A district court

Cite as: 556 U. S. ____ (2009) 7

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.

entertaining a §4 petition is required to determine what “a

suit” arising out of the allegedly arbitrable controversy

would look like. There is no helping that, given the stat

ute’s subjunctive language. But that does not mean the

inquiry is the free-form one the majority posits.

To the contrary, a district court must look to the specific

controversy—the concrete dispute that one party has

“fail[ed], neglect[ed], or refus[ed]” to arbitrate—and de

termine whether that controversy would give rise to a suit

under federal law. District courts do that sort of thing

often enough; the exercise is closely analogous to the

jurisdictional analysis in a typical declaratory judgment

action. See Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction

Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U. S. 1, 19

(1983) (jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action

exists when, “if the declaratory judgment defendant

brought a coercive action to enforce its rights, that suit

would necessarily present a federal question” (emphasis

added)). Looking to the specific controversy outlined in

Discover’s §4 petition (whether its fees violate the FDIA),

it hardly requires “dream[ing]” to conceive of a lawsuit in

which Vaden would claim the FDIA has been violated and

Discover would claim it has not. Ante, at 18.

Nor would respondents’ approach allow a §4 petitioner

to simply “recharacterize” or “manufacture” a controversy

to create federal jurisdiction. Ante, at 17. All of the

established rules of federal jurisdiction are fully applicable

in scrutinizing whether a federal court would have juris

diction over a suit arising out of the parties’ underlying

controversy.

For example, a federal question must be presented by

the specific controversy the §4 petitioner seeks to arbi

trate, not by some hypothetical federal issue “lurking in

the background.” Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian,

299 U. S. 109, 117 (1936). A district court could not com

pel arbitration of a state-law dispute by pointing to a

8 VADEN v. DISCOVER BANK

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.

potential federal defense that the §4 petitioner is not

seeking to arbitrate, because the “claim itself must pre

sent a federal question” to arise under federal law. Skelly

Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U. S. 667, 672

(1950). Nor could a district court compel arbitration of a

dispute that, though not federal in character, could lead to

the filing of a federal counterclaim, for “a counterclaim . . .

cannot serve as the basis for [federal] jurisdiction” of the

state-law dispute itself. Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado

Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U. S. 826, 831 (2002).

Accordingly, petitioners may no more smuggle state-law

claims into federal court through §4 than they can through

declaratory judgment actions, or any other federal cause of

action. To the extent §4 brings some issues into federal

court in a particular case that may not be brought in

through other procedural mechanisms, it does so by

“enlarg[ing] the range of remedies available in the federal

courts[,] . . . not extend[ing] their jurisdiction.” Skelly Oil,

supra, at 671.

That is why the majority’s recital of the basic rules of

federal-court jurisdiction in Part II of its opinion is beside

the point: No one disputes what those rules are, and no

one disputes that they must be followed under §4 in

deciding whether a federal court “would have jurisdiction

. . . of the subject matter of a suit arising out of the

controversy between the parties.” The issue is instead

what suit should be scrutinized for compliance with those

rules. In defining “controversy” by reference to existing

litigation, the majority artificially limits the reach of §4 to

the particular suit filed. The correct approach is to accord

§4 the scope mandated by its language and look to “a suit,”

arising out of the “subject matter” of the “controversy” the

§4 petitioner seeks to arbitrate, and determine whether a

federal court would have jurisdiction over such a suit.

The majority concludes by noting that state courts are

obliged to honor and enforce agreements to arbitrate.

Cite as: 556 U. S. ____ (2009) 9

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.

Ante, at 20. The question here, however, is one of remedy.

It is a common feature of our federal system that States

often provide remedies similar to those under federal law

for the same wrongs. We do not, however, narrowly con

strue the federal remedies—say federal antitrust or civil

rights remedies—because state law provides remedies in

those areas as well. Cf. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 183

(1961) (“It is no answer that the State has a law which if

enforced would give relief”).

* * *

Discover and Vaden have agreed to arbitrate any

dispute arising out of Vaden’s account with Discover.

Vaden’s allegations against Discover have given rise to

such a dispute. Discover seeks to arbitrate that contro

versy, but Vaden refuses to do so. Resolution of the

controversy is governed by federal law, specifically the

FDIA. There is no dispute about that. In the absence of

the arbitration agreement, a federal court “would have

jurisdiction . . . of the subject matter of a suit arising out

of the controversy between the parties,” 9 U. S. C. §4,

whether the suit were brought by Vaden or Discover. The

District Court therefore may exercise jurisdiction over this

petition under §4 of the Federal Arbitration Act.