Whether the Federal Arbitration Act prohibits courts from applying a state-law presumption expressly disfavoring enforcement of arbitration provisions in consumer homebuying contracts, when applicable state law does not subject other contractual agreements to the same adverse presumption

QUESTION PRESENTED Under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), an agreement to arbitrate “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. This Court’s precedents have repeatedly held that the FAA embodies an equal-treatment or anti-discrimination rule that prohibits states from applying state law rules that accord “suspect status” to arbitration agreements or otherwise treat them differently from other contractual agreements. In this case, however, the Supreme Court of South Carolina reviewed a contractual arbitration agreement under an adverse presumption that requires courts to view arbitration provisions in consumer homebuying contracts with “considerable doubt” and “considerable skepticism.” The question presented is: Whether the Federal Arbitration Act prohibits courts from applying a state-law presumption expressly disfavoring enforcement of arbitration provisions in consumer homebuying contracts, when applicable state law does not subject other contractual agreements to the same adverse presumption.