Discover Bank sued Vaden in state court for nonpayment of her credit card balance. Vaden counterclaimed, raising state-law claims of breach of contract and violation of state statutes regulating credit card fees and charges. Discover Bank then petitioned a federal district court seeking to compel arbitration of Vaden's state-court counterclaims. The federal district court granted the motion to compel arbitration. The 4th Circuit affirmed (2-1). 

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) itself does not create jurisdiction in the federal courts, and there must be a federal question or diversity of citizenship. The 4th Circuit held (2-1) that federal courts have jurisdiction because of the presence of a federal question in the underlying dispute. Because Discover Bank is a federally-insured bank, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA) is implicated by Vaden's counterclaims. The court also found that Vaden's counterclaims are completely preempted by the FDIA. The DISSENT argued that the federal court should look no further than the face of the petition to compel arbitration to see whether a federal question exists; existence of a federal question does not depend on the nature of the underlying dispute to be arbitrated. 

Case below: Discover Bank v. Vaden (4th Cir 06/13/2007) (2-1 vote) 
Oral argument:  October 6, 2008. 
Official docket sheet 
Certiorari granted: March 17, 2008.  

Questions presented:  

1. Whether a suit seeking to enforce a state-law arbitration obligation brought under Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 4, “aris[es] under” federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, when the petition to compel itself raises no federal question but the dispute sought to be arbitrated - a dispute that the federal court is not asked to and cannot reach - involves federal law.