The US Supreme Court invalidated a state court rule that had held unenforceable arbitration agreements entered into under broad powers of attorney whenever the powers of attorney did not expressly entitle the representative to enter into an arbitration agreement.  Kindred Nursing Centers Ltd. P’ship v. Clark, 137 S. Ct. 1421 (U.S. 2017) (No. 16-32).  The Supreme Court found that the state court had singled out arbitration agreements (in this case, in a nursing home contract entered into under a power of attorney) for disfavored treatment under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).  The Court noted that the FAA establishes an equal treatment principle:  a court may invalidate an arbitration agreement based on generally applicable contract defenses, but not on legal rules that apply only to arbitration.  The FAA thus preempts any state rule that discriminates on its face against arbitration.  Here, by requiring an explicit statement before an agent can relinquish her principal’s right to go to court and be bound to arbitrate, the state court improperly had adopted a legal rule that held arbitration agreements to a different standard than other contracts.