Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc.
539 U.S. 52, 156 L. Ed. 2d 46, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 4418 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Federal Arbitration Act's (FAA) requirement that a contract evidence a 'transaction involving commerce' should be interpreted broadly to the full extent of Congress's Commerce Clause power. An arbitration agreement is enforceable under the FAA if the underlying economic activity, viewed in the aggregate, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the specific transaction at issue is purely intrastate.
Facts:
- Alafabco, Inc., an Alabama-based construction company, had a decade-long business relationship with The Citizens Bank, an Alabama lending institution, which provided operating capital.
- The bank allegedly encouraged Alafabco to bid on a large construction project but then refused to provide the necessary capital to complete it.
- To finish the project, Alafabco used funds that would otherwise have been used to repay existing obligations to the bank, causing Alafabco to become delinquent on its loans.
- The parties executed two debt-restructuring agreements to resolve Alafabco's outstanding debts.
- Both agreements contained arbitration clauses stating that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) would apply to their construction and enforcement.
- The restructured debt was secured by all of Alafabco's business assets, including its inventory of goods assembled from out-of-state parts and raw materials.
- Alafabco engaged in business and construction projects throughout the southeastern United States, financed in part by the loans from the bank.
Procedural Posture:
- Alafabco, Inc. sued The Citizens Bank in the Circuit Court of Lawrence County, Alabama, a state trial court.
- The Citizens Bank filed a motion to compel arbitration based on the arbitration agreements.
- The trial court granted the bank's motion and ordered the parties to submit to arbitration.
- Alafabco, Inc. (as appellant) appealed the order to the Supreme Court of Alabama, the state's highest court.
- The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the trial court, finding an insufficient nexus with interstate commerce for the FAA to apply.
- The Citizens Bank (as petitioner) petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a debt-restructuring agreement between two in-state entities, which includes an arbitration clause, constitute a 'transaction involving commerce' under the Federal Arbitration Act when the underlying business activities funded by the agreement and the general practice of commercial lending affect interstate commerce?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. The debt-restructuring agreement is a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce within the meaning of the Federal Arbitration Act. The FAA's 'involving commerce' language is the functional equivalent of 'affecting commerce,' which signals the broadest permissible exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause power. The Supreme Court of Alabama erred by narrowly requiring the specific debt-restructuring transaction to have a 'substantial effect' on interstate commerce. The proper analysis, under precedents like Wickard v. Filburn, is not whether the individual transaction has a specific effect, but whether the 'general practice' or class of economic activity, in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce. The transaction here satisfies this test because: 1) the loans financed Alafabco's interstate construction business; 2) the debt was secured by assets, including inventory, that moved in interstate commerce; and 3) the general practice of commercial lending has a broad and undeniable impact on the national economy.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the broad scope of the Federal Arbitration Act, cementing the precedent from Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson. It clarifies that the Commerce Clause's aggregation principle applies to the FAA's 'involving commerce' test, meaning courts should look at the general class of economic activity rather than just the isolated, intrastate transaction. This makes it significantly more difficult for parties to evade FAA-governed arbitration agreements by arguing their specific deal was purely local. The ruling reinforces the national policy favoring arbitration and ensures its wide applicability to most commercial contracts.
