Federal law as embodied in the United States Arbitration Act mandates the enforcement of arbitration clauses. However, Federal courts have traditionally given less weight to agreements to arbitrate than to other contractual agreements. They have done this in spite of a clear record laid down by the U.S. Supreme Court favoring arbitration. Supreme Court dicta have also emphasized a strong Federal policy favoring arbitration. In two recent decisions, Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd and Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, the Supreme Court broadened the scope of enforceability of arbitration agreements. In Byrd, the Court held that arbitrable claims should be arbitrated without regard to their relationship to nonarbitrable claims. Mitsubishi held that antitrust claims arising out of international transactions are arbitrable. In the past, Federal judges have not favored the arbitration of antitrust disputes arising out of domestic transactions. Byrd and Mitsubishi make clear that the Arbitration Act leaves no room for the exercise of discretion by the courts. Courts forced with arbitration clauses must enforce them unless Congress has authorized the preclusion of arbitration in a particular set of circumstances. 211 footnotes.