Page:Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Frank Varela.pdf/35

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Cite as: 587 U. S. ___ (2019)
3

Sotomayor, J., dissenting

it comes to the possible pre-emption of state law, see, e. g., Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U. S. 470, 485 (1996), but the majority today invades California contract law without pausing to address whether its incursion is necessary. Such haste is as ill advised as the new federal common law of arbitration contracts it has begotten.—————

    the majority never suggests that it shares my rationale as to why the contract is ambiguous. In other words, the reasons that I reach the issue that the majority decides say nothing about whether the majority would get there itself, short of deferring to the lower federal court.