D is an interstate trucking company and P works as one of its drivers. P isn’t an employee. The parties’ contracts label him an independent contractor. The contract also requires that any disputes arising out of the parties’ relationship should be resolved by an arbitrator-even disputes over the scope of the arbitrator’s authority. P instituted this class action against D contending that D denies its drivers lawful wages. P alleged that D treats its drivers as employees and fails to pay the statutorily due minimum wage. D asked the court to invoke its statutory authority under the FAA and compel arbitration according to the terms found in the parties’ agreements. P claimed in part that the Act doesn’t always authorize a court to enter an order compelling it. In particular, §1 carves out from the Act’s coverage “contracts of employment of . . . workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” P also argued that it doesn't matter whether you view him as an employee or independent contractor as a “contract of employment of . . . [a] worker engaged in . . . interstate commerce.” D claims that any question about §1’s application belonged to the arbitrator alone to resolve. Alternatively and assuming a court could address the question, D contends that the term “contracts of employment” refers only to contracts that establish an employer-employee relationship and not an independent contractor. The district court and the First Circuit agreed with P. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.