People who borrowed money from Buckeye Check Cashing signed an agreement that included a clause requiring any dispute to go to arbitration. Suit was filed by some customers against Buckeye claiming their service violated the lending laws of Florida, which would make the agreement invalid. The Florida high court held that because the legality of the contract was in question, the matter had to go to court for review, not arbitration. Do you think that ruling was upheld on review by the U.S. Supreme Court? [Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardegna, 126 S. Ct. 1204 (2006)]