The Texas Supreme Court has held the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) has preemptive effect over incompatible state law when the parties have agreed the FAA governs as a matter of contract interpretation under state contract law, irrespective of whether the arbitration agreement in fact falls within the coverage requirements of Section 2 of the FAA.

The question presented is whether an arbitration agreement must in fact be part of a "contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce" in order to be within coverage of Section 2 of the FAA, which only then preempts incompatible state law by virtue of the Supremacy Clause, and which under this Court's decisions in Bernhardt and Lopez, requires evidence that while performing her employment duties Lopez's activities "substantially affect" interstate commerce.

Alternatively, the Court should reconsider its interpretation of "a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce" under Section 2 of the FAA and conclude the FAA preempts incompatible state law only with evidence that while performing her employment duties Lopez's activities "substantially affect" interstate commerce.

Whether an arbitration agreement must in fact be part of a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce" to be within the coverage of Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act