Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski ( 2023 )

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2022 1
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
COINBASE, INC. v. BIELSKI
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 22–105. Argued March 21, 2023—Decided June 23, 2023
Abraham Bielski filed a putative class action on behalf of Coinbase users
alleging that Coinbase, an online currency platform, failed to replace
funds fraudulently taken from the users’ accounts. Because Coinbase’s
User Agreement provides for dispute resolution through binding arbi-
tration, Coinbase filed a motion to compel arbitration. The District
Court denied the motion. Coinbase then filed an interlocutory appeal
to the Ninth Circuit under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C.
§16(a), which authorizes an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a
motion to compel arbitration. Coinbase also moved the District Court
to stay its proceedings pending resolution of the interlocutory appeal.
The District Court denied Coinbase’s stay motion, and the Ninth Cir-
cuit likewise declined to stay the District Court’s proceedings pending
appeal.
Held: A district court must stay its proceedings while an interlocutory
appeal on the question of arbitrability is ongoing. Pp. 2–10.
(a) Section 16(a) does not say whether district court proceedings
must be stayed pending resolution of an interlocutory appeal. But
Congress enacted the provision against a clear background principle
prescribed by this Court’s precedents: An appeal, including an inter-
locutory appeal, “divests the district court of its control over those as-
pects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer
Discount Co., 459 U. S. 56, 58. The Griggs principle resolves this case.
Because the question on appeal is whether the case belongs in arbitra-
tion or instead in the district court, the entire case is essentially “in-
volved in the appeal,” id., at 58, and Griggs dictates that the district
court stay its proceedings while the interlocutory appeal on arbitrabil-
ity is ongoing. Most courts of appeals to address this question, as well
as leading treatises, agree with that conclusion.
2 COINBASE, INC. v. BIELSKI
Syllabus
The common practice of staying district court proceedings during the
pendency of an interlocutory appeal taken under §16(a) reflects com-
mon sense. If the district court could move forward with pre-trial and
trial proceedings while the appeal on arbitrability was ongoing, then
many of the asserted benefits of arbitration (efficiency, less expense,
less intrusive discovery, and the like) would be irretrievably lost—even
if the court of appeals later concluded that the case actually had be-
longed in arbitration all along. Absent a stay, parties also could be
forced to settle to avoid the district court proceedings (including dis-
covery and trial) that they contracted to avoid through arbitration.
The Griggs rule avoids these detrimental results.
Congress’s longstanding practice reflects the Griggs rule. Given
Griggs, when Congress wants to authorize an interlocutory appeal and
to automatically stay the district court proceedings during that appeal,
Congress ordinarily need not say anything about a stay. By contrast,
when Congress wants to authorize an interlocutory appeal, but not to
automatically stay district court proceedings pending that appeal,
Congress typically says so. Since the creation of the modern courts of
appeals system in 1891, Congress has enacted multiple statutory “non-
stay” provisions. Pp. 2–7.
(b) Bielski’s arguments to overcome the Griggs principle are unper-
suasive. First, the courts of appeals possess robust tools to prevent
unwarranted delay and deter frivolous interlocutory appeals that an
automatic stay might otherwise encourage. Second, Congress included
explicit stay requirements in two other statutory provisions for rea-
sons particular to those statutes, not because Congress thought that
an interlocutory appeal did not ordinarily stay district court proceed-
ings. Third, the result here does not create a special, arbitration-pre-
ferring procedural rule, but simply subjects arbitrability appeals to the
same stay principles that courts apply in other analogous contexts
where an interlocutory appeal is authorized. Fourth, experience shows
that ordinary discretionary stay factors would not adequately protect
parties’ rights to an interlocutory appellate determination of arbitra-
bility. In any event, the background Griggs rule applies regardless of
how often courts might otherwise grant stays under the ordinary dis-
cretionary stay factors. Fifth, while the Court has recognized that
questions of arbitrability are severable from merits questions, the sole
issue here is whether the district court’s authority to consider a case is
“involved in the appeal” when an appellate court considers the thresh-
old question of arbitrability, Griggs, 459 U. S., at 58. The answer is
yes. Pp. 7–10.
Reversed and remanded.
Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 3
Syllabus
KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and ALITO, GORSUCH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed
a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN, JJ., joined in full,
and in which THOMAS, J., joined as to Parts II, III and IV.
Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 1
Opinion of the Court
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543,
pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 22–105
_________________
COINBASE, INC., PETITIONER v. ABRAHAM BIELSKI
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[June 23, 2023]
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH delivered the opinion of the Court.
When a federal district court denies a motion to compel
arbitration, the losing party has a statutory right to an
interlocutory appeal. See 9 U. S. C. §16(a). The sole
question here is whether the district court must stay its
pre-trial and trial proceedings while the interlocutory
appeal is ongoing. The answer is yes: The district court
must stay its proceedings.
I
Coinbase operates an online platform on which users can
buy and sell cryptocurrencies and government-issued
currencies. When creating a Coinbase account, individuals
agree to the terms in Coinbase’s User Agreement. As
relevant here, the User Agreement contains an arbitration
provision, which directs that disputes arising under the
agreement be resolved through binding arbitration.
This case concerns a putative class action filed against
Coinbase in the U. S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. Abraham Bielski sued on behalf of
Coinbase users who allege that Coinbase failed to replace
funds fraudulently taken from the users’ accounts.
The District Court denied Coinbase’s motion to compel
2 COINBASE, INC. v. BIELSKI
Opinion of the Court
arbitration. Coinbase then filed an interlocutory appeal to
the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit under 9
U. S. C. §16(a).1 Section 16(a) authorizes an interlocutory
appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration.
Coinbase also moved to stay District Court proceedings
pending resolution of the arbitrability issue on appeal. The
District Court declined to stay its proceedings. After
receiving Coinbase’s motion for a stay, the Ninth Circuit
likewise declined to stay the District Court’s proceedings.
The Ninth Circuit followed its precedent, under which an
appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration
does not automatically stay district court proceedings. See
Britton v. Co-op Banking Group, 916 F. 2d 1405, 1412
(1990). By contrast, however, most other Courts of Appeals
to address the question have held that a district court must
stay its proceedings while the interlocutory appeal on the
question of arbitrability is ongoing. E.g., Bradford-Scott
Data Corp. v. Physician Computer Network, Inc., 128 F. 3d
504, 506 (CA7 1997).
To resolve that disagreement among the Courts of
Appeals, we granted certiorari. 598 U. S. ___ (2022).
II
The Federal Arbitration Act governs arbitration
agreements. In 1988, Congress passed and President
Reagan signed an amendment to the Act; the amendment
is codified at 9 U. S. C. §16(a). Under §16(a), when a
——————
1 As relevant, the text of §16(a) provides:
“An appeal may be taken from . . . an order . . .
“(A) refusing a stay of any action under section 3 of this title,
“(B) denying a petition under section 4 of this title to order arbitration
to proceed,
“(C) denying an application under section 206 of this title to compel
arbitration,
“(D) confirming or denying confirmation of an award or partial award,
or
“(E) modifying, correcting, or vacating an award.”
Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 3
Opinion of the Court
district court denies a party’s motion to compel arbitration,
that party may take an interlocutory appeal. Section 16(a)
creates a rare statutory exception to the usual rule that
parties may not appeal before final judgment. See Mohawk
Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U. S. 100, 108–109 (2009).
Notably, Congress provided for immediate interlocutory
appeals of orders denying—but not of orders granting—
motions to compel arbitration.
The sole question before this Court is whether a district
court must stay its proceedings while the interlocutory
appeal on arbitrability is ongoing. The answer is yes.
Section 16(a) does not say whether the district court
proceedings must be stayed. But Congress enacted §16(a)
against a clear background principle prescribed by this
Court’s precedents: An appeal, including an interlocutory
appeal, “divests the district court of its control over those
aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v.
Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U. S. 56, 58 (1982).
That Griggs principle reflects a longstanding tenet of
American procedure. See Hovey v. McDonald, 109 U. S.
150, 157 (1883); see also Price v. Dunn, 587 U. S. ___, ___
(2019) (THOMAS, J., joined by ALITO and GORSUCH, JJ.,
concurring in denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 7) (describing
Griggs principle as “well settled”); Marrese v. American
Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U. S. 373, 379
(1985) (“In general, filing of a notice of appeal confers
jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district
court of control over those aspects of the case involved in
the appeal”).
The Griggs principle resolves this case. Because the
question on appeal is whether the case belongs in
arbitration or instead in the district court, the entire case
is essentially “involved in the appeal.” 459 U. S., at 58. As
Judge Easterbrook cogently explained, when a party
appeals the denial of a motion to compel arbitration,
whether “the litigation may go forward in the district court
4 COINBASE, INC. v. BIELSKI
Opinion of the Court
is precisely what the court of appeals must decide.”
Bradford-Scott Data Corp. v. Physician Computer Network,
Inc., 128 F. 3d 504, 506 (CA7 1997). Stated otherwise, the
question of whether “the case should be litigated in the
district court . . . is the mirror image of the question
presented on appeal.” Id., at 505. Here, as elsewhere, it
“makes no sense for trial to go forward while the court of
appeals cogitates on whether there should be one.” Apostol
v. Gallion, 870 F. 2d 1335, 1338 (CA7 1989). In short,
Griggs dictates that the district court must stay its
proceedings while the interlocutory appeal on arbitrability
is ongoing.2
Most courts of appeals to address the question in the
§16(a) context have reached that same conclusion. E.g.,
Blinco v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 366 F. 3d 1249, 1253
(CA11 2004) (“[I]t makes little sense for the litigation to
continue in the district court while the appeal is pending”).3
Leading treatises agree that a district court should stay its
proceedings while the interlocutory appeal on arbitrability
is ongoing. For example, Moore’s treatise states that a “stay
in these circumstances” is “the sounder approach” and “is
consistent with the general [Griggs] principle that a district
court should not exercise jurisdiction over those aspects of
the case that are involved in the appeal.” 19 J. Moore, D.
——————
2 Coinbase concedes that the district court may still proceed with
matters that are not involved in the appeal, such as the awarding of costs
and attorney’s fees. Brief for Petitioner 21; see also 16A C. Wright, A.
Miller, E. Cooper, & C. Struve, Federal Practice and Procedure §3949.1,
pp. 68–69 (5th ed. 2019).
3 See also Levin v. Alms & Assoc., Inc., 634 F. 3d 260, 266 (CA4 2011);
Ehleiter v. Grapetree Shores, Inc., 482 F. 3d 207, 215, n. 6 (CA3 2007);
McCauley v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc., 413 F. 3d 1158, 1162–1163
(CA10 2005); Bombardier Corp. v. National R. Passenger Corporation,
333 F. 3d 250, 252 (CADC 2003); Bradford-Scott Data Corp. v. Physician
Computer Network, Inc., 128 F. 3d 504, 505–507 (CA7 1997); but see, e.g.,
Weingarten Realty Investors v. Miller, 661 F. 3d 904, 907–910 (CA5
2011).
Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 5
Opinion of the Court
Coquillette, G. Joseph, G. Vairo, & C. Varner, Moore’s
Federal Practice §203.12[3][a] (3d ed. 2022). Similarly, the
Wright and Miller treatise endorses the automatic stay
requirement in arbitration cases. The treatise explains
that a “complete stay of district-court proceedings pending
appeal from a refusal to order arbitration is desirable”
because “[c]ontinued trial-court proceedings pending
appeal could lead to an entirely wasted trial if arbitration
is ordered on appeal.” 15B C. Wright, A. Miller, & E.
Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §3914.17, p. 7 (2d
ed., Supp. 2022). In the Circuits that have considered the
issue in the analogous contexts of qualified immunity and
double jeopardy, moreover, district courts likewise must
automatically stay their proceedings while the
interlocutory appeal is ongoing.4 Similarly, as Bielski
acknowledges, courts have held that the Griggs principle
applies to those aspects of the case involved in a certified
interlocutory appeal under 28 U. S. C. §1292(b).5
The common practice in §16(a) cases, therefore, is for a
district court to stay its proceedings while the interlocutory
appeal on arbitrability is ongoing. That common practice
reflects common sense. Absent an automatic stay of district
court proceedings, Congress’s decision in §16(a) to afford a
right to an interlocutory appeal would be largely nullified.
——————
4 E.g., United States v. Montgomery, 262 F. 3d 233, 239–240 (CA4 2001)
(double jeopardy); United States v. LaMere, 951 F. 2d 1106, 1108 (CA9
1991) (same); United States v. Grabinski, 674 F. 2d 677, 679 (CA8 1982)
(same); United States v. Dunbar, 611 F. 2d 985, 988–989 (CA5 1980) (en
banc) (same); Chuman v. Wright, 960 F. 2d 104, 105 (CA9 1992)
(qualified immunity); Yates v. Cleveland, 941 F. 2d 444, 448–449 (CA6
1991) (same); Apostol v. Gallion, 870 F. 2d 1335, 1338 (CA7 1989) (same);
Stewart v. Donges, 915 F. 2d 572, 575–576 (CA10 1990) (both).
5 See Tr. of Oral Arg. 60–61; see also Green Leaf Nursery v. E. I. DuPont
De Nemours and Co., 341 F. 3d 1292, 1309 (CA11 2003); Los Angeles v.
Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F. 3d 882, 885–886 (CA9 2001); Dayton
Independent School Dist. v. U. S. Mineral Prods. Co., 906 F. 2d 1059,
1063–1064 (CA5 1990).
6 COINBASE, INC. v. BIELSKI
Opinion of the Court
If the district court could move forward with pre-trial and
trial proceedings while the appeal on arbitrability was
ongoing, then many of the asserted benefits of arbitration
(efficiency, less expense, less intrusive discovery, and the
like) would be irretrievably lost—even if the court of
appeals later concluded that the case actually had belonged
in arbitration all along. Absent a stay, parties also could be
forced to settle to avoid the district court proceedings
(including discovery and trial) that they contracted to avoid
through arbitration. That potential for coercion is
especially pronounced in class actions, where the possibility
of colossal liability can lead to what Judge Friendly called
“blackmail settlements.” H. Friendly, Federal Jurisdiction:
A General View 120 (1973).
As Judge Easterbrook stated, continuation of proceedings
in the district court “largely defeats the point of the appeal.”
Bradford-Scott, 128 F. 3d, at 505. A right to interlocutory
appeal of the arbitrability issue without an automatic stay
of the district court proceedings is therefore like a lock
without a key, a bat without a ball, a computer without a
keyboard—in other words, not especially sensible.
From the Judiciary’s institutional perspective, moreover,
allowing a case to proceed simultaneously in the district
court and the court of appeals creates the possibility that
the district court will waste scarce judicial resources—
which could be devoted to other pressing criminal or civil
matters—on a dispute that will ultimately head to
arbitration in any event. That scenario represents the
“worst possible outcome” for parties and the courts:
litigating a dispute in the district court only for the court of
appeals to “reverse and order the dispute arbitrated.” Id.,
at 506. The Griggs rule avoids that detrimental result.
Importantly, Congress’s longstanding practice both
reflects and reinforces the Griggs rule. When Congress
wants to authorize an interlocutory appeal and to
automatically stay the district court proceedings during
Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 7
Opinion of the Court
that appeal, Congress need not say anything about a stay.
At least absent contrary indications, the background Griggs
principle already requires an automatic stay of district
court proceedings that relate to any aspect of the case
involved in the appeal. By contrast, when Congress wants
to authorize an interlocutory appeal, but not to
automatically stay district court proceedings pending that
appeal, Congress typically says so. Since the creation of the
modern courts of appeals system in 1891, Congress has
enacted multiple statutory “non-stay” provisions.6 Indeed,
Congress enacted a “non-stay” provision the day before
enacting §16(a) in 1988. See 102 Stat. 4120 (“Neither the
application for, nor the granting of, an appeal . . . shall stay
proceedings in the Court of Veterans Appeals”).
In short, the Griggs rule requires that a district court
stay its proceedings while the interlocutory appeal on the
question of arbitrability is ongoing.
III
To overcome the Griggs principle, Bielski advances five
main arguments. None is persuasive.
First, Bielski contends that an automatic stay would
encourage frivolous appeals that would improperly delay
district court proceedings. To begin with, Bielski has not
established that frivolous appeals frequently occur in the
Circuits that have long applied the Griggs principle in
——————
6 Act of Apr. 3, 1926, ch. 102, 44 Stat. 233–234; Act of Feb. 28, 1927,
ch. 228, id., at 1261; Act of Sept. 2, 1958, Pub. L. 85–919, 72 Stat. 1770;
Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, §125, 96 Stat. 37, 28 U. S. C.
§1292(d)(3); Tax Reform Act of 1986, §1558, 100 Stat. 2757–2758, 26
U. S. C. §7482(a)(2)(A); Veterans’ Judicial Review Act, 102 Stat. 4120, as
amended, 38 U. S. C. §7292(b)(1); Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and
Consumer Protection Act of 2005, 119 Stat. 203, 28 U. S. C.
§158(d)(2)(D); Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic
Stability Act, §306, 130 Stat. 582, 48 U. S. C. §2166(e)(6); see also
Judiciary Act of 1891, §7, 26 Stat. 828; Act of June 6, 1900, ch. 803, 31
Stat. 660–661; Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(f ).
8 COINBASE, INC. v. BIELSKI
Opinion of the Court
arbitration cases. Cf. Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White
Sales, Inc., 586 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 8). Nor does
Bielski argue that Coinbase’s appeal in this case is
frivolous. Importantly, moreover, the courts of appeals
possess robust tools to prevent unwarranted delay and
deter frivolous interlocutory appeals. For example, a party
can ask the court of appeals to summarily affirm, to
expedite an interlocutory appeal, or to dismiss the
interlocutory appeal as frivolous. In addition, nearly every
circuit has developed a process by which a district court
itself may certify that an interlocutory appeal is frivolous.
Brief for Petitioner 51; see also Arthur Andersen LLP v.
Carlisle, 556 U. S. 624, 629 (2009) (“Appellate courts can
streamline the disposition of meritless claims and even
authorize the district court’s retention of ” a case “when an
appeal is certified as frivolous”). Finally, a court of appeals
may impose sanctions where appropriate; the possibility of
sanctions also helps deter frivolous appeals. See Fed. Rule
App. Proc. 38; Arthur Andersen, 556 U. S., at 629.
Second, Bielski contrasts §16(a) with two other statutory
provisions that contain an explicit stay requirement—§3 of
the Federal Arbitration Act and §1292(d)(4) of Title 28.
Bielski suggests that Congress would not have included
those explicit stay requirements in §3 and §1292(d)(4)
unless Congress thought that an interlocutory appeal did
not ordinarily stay district court proceedings. Bielski is
wrong.
Section 3 of the Act provides for a stay of court
proceedings pending arbitration, not pending an appeal.
That situation does not fall within the Griggs rule. No
background principle requires automatic stays of district
court proceedings pending arbitration. In order to
automatically stay court proceedings pending arbitration in
those cases, Congress therefore affirmatively codified a stay
requirement.
As to §1292(d)(4): When Congress added §1292(d)(4)’s
Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 9
Opinion of the Court
stay requirement in 1988, the relevant subsection already
contained a provision, §1292(d)(3), that expressly made
stays of proceedings in certain courts discretionary rather
than mandatory. To avoid any misinterpretation of
§1292(d)(4) because of that preexisting language in
§1292(d)(3), Congress specified the right to an automatic
stay pending appeal in §1292(d)(4). That unusual
circumstance does not diminish the operation of the Griggs
rule in the context of arbitrability appeals.
Third, Bielski contends that requiring an automatic stay
would create a special, arbitration-preferring procedural
rule. That is incorrect. In fact, Bielski’s proposed approach
would disfavor arbitration. Applying the Griggs rule here
simply subjects arbitrability appeals to the same stay
principles that courts apply in other analogous contexts
where an interlocutory appeal is authorized, including
qualified immunity and double jeopardy. Bielski further
points to forum selection clauses as an analogy. But unlike
§16(a) arbitrability appeals, Congress has not created a
right to an interlocutory appeal for cases involving forum
selection clauses. So a stay in the forum selection context
could be required only in those cases where there is a
certified §1292(b) interlocutory appeal of the forum
selection issue.
Fourth, Bielski suggests that there is no need for an
automatic stay because the ordinary discretionary stay
factors would adequately protect parties’ rights to an
interlocutory appellate determination of arbitrability. To
begin with, experience shows that Bielski is incorrect.
District courts and courts of appeals applying the usual
four-factor standard for a discretionary stay often deny
stays in §16(a) appeals because courts applying that test
often do not consider litigation-related burdens (here, from
the continued District Court proceedings) to constitute
irreparable harm. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434–
435 (2009); FTC v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal., 449 U. S. 232,
10 COINBASE, INC. v. BIELSKI
Opinion of the Court
244 (1980) (“Mere litigation expense, even substantial and
unrecoupable cost, does not constitute irreparable injury”
(internal quotation marks omitted)); App. to Pet. for Cert.
43a (District Court in Bielski stating that “[m]ere litigation
expenses do not generally constitute irreparable injury” for
purposes of stay pending appeal). In any event, the
background Griggs rule applies regardless of how often
courts might otherwise grant stays under the ordinary
discretionary stay factors.
Fifth, Bielski relies on this Court’s statement that
questions of arbitrability are “severable from the merits of
the underlying disputes.” Moses H. Cone Memorial
Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U. S. 1, 21 (1983).
But the sole issue here is whether the district court’s
authority to consider a case is “involved in the appeal” when
an appellate court considers the threshold question of
arbitrability. Griggs, 459 U. S., at 58. The answer is yes,
and Moses H. Cone says nothing to the contrary.
* * *
We conclude that, after Coinbase appealed from the
denial of its motion to compel arbitration, the District Court
was required to stay its proceedings. On remand, we
anticipate that the Ninth Circuit here, as we anticipate in
§16(a) appeals more generally, will proceed with
appropriate expedition when considering Coinbase’s
interlocutory appeal from the denial of the motion to compel
arbitration. We reverse the judgment of the Court of
Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.7
It is so ordered.
——————
7 The Court’s judgment today pertains to respondent Abraham Bielski.
The writ of certiorari as to respondents David Suski et al. is dismissed
as improvidently granted.
Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 1
JACKSON, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 22–105
_________________
COINBASE, INC., PETITIONER v. ABRAHAM BIELSKI
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[June 23, 2023]
JUSTICE JACKSON, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and
JUSTICE KAGAN join, and with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins
as to Parts II, III, and IV, dissenting.
When a federal court of appeals conducts interlocutory
review of a trial court order, the rest of the case remains at
the trial court level. Usually, the trial judge then makes a
particularized determination upon request, based on the
facts and circumstances of that case, as to whether the re-
maining part of the case should continue unabated or be
paused (stayed) pending appeal. This discretionary deci-
sionmaking promotes procedural fairness because it allows
for a balancing of all relevant interests. See Nken v. Holder,
556 U. S. 418, 434 (2009).
Today, the Court departs from this traditional approach.
It holds that, with respect to an interlocutory appeal of a
trial court order denying arbitration, a trial court must al-
ways “stay its pre-trial and trial proceedings while the in-
terlocutory appeal is ongoing.” Ante, at 1. In other words,
in this context, the Court sees fit to impose a mandatory
general stay of trial court proceedings.
This mandatory-general-stay rule for interlocutory arbi-
trability appeals comes out of nowhere. No statute imposes
it. Nor does any decision of this Court. Yet today’s majority
invents a new stay rule perpetually favoring one class of
litigants—defendants seeking arbitration. Those defend-
ants will now receive a stay even when, according to the
2 COINBASE, INC. v. BIELSKI
JACKSON, J., dissenting
usual equitable analysis, there is no good reason for one.
And, in reaching this result, the Court concludes for the
first time that an interlocutory appeal about one matter (ar-
bitrability) bars the district court from proceeding on an-
other (the merits). That logic has such significant implica-
tions for federal litigation that the majority itself shies
away from the Pandora’s box it may have opened.
I see no basis here for wresting away the discretion tra-
ditionally entrusted to the judge closest to a case. I respect-
fully dissent.
I
Congress did not impose the mandatory-general-stay rule
that the majority adopts today.
Start with the governing statute. Congress addressed the
kind of interlocutory appeals at issue here in 9 U. S. C.
§16—the section of the Federal Arbitration Act it enacted
to govern “Appeals.” 102 Stat. 4671 (amending the Federal
Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. §1 et seq.). Section 16 provides
that “[a]n appeal may be taken from” specified orders and
decisions, and “an appeal may not be taken from” others.
The appeals that §16 authorizes include interlocutory ap-
peals of orders denying requests for arbitration.
§§16(a)(1)(A)–(C).
But nowhere did Congress provide that such an interloc-
utory appeal automatically triggers a general stay of pre-
trial and trial proceedings. As the majority opinion admits,
§16 never even mentions a stay pending appeal. Ante, at 3.
Even beyond that, related provisions confirm that Con-
gress imposed no mandatory general stay in §16 appeals.
“Where Congress includes particular language in one sec-
tion of a statute but omits it in another section of the same
Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intention-
ally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.”
Nken, 556 U. S., at 430 (alterations and internal quotation
marks omitted). Congress did that here—twice.
Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 3
JACKSON, J., dissenting
First, Congress expressly mandated a general interlocu-
tory stay in another provision of the same 1988 law that
enacted §16. See 102 Stat. 4652, 4670–4671. Like §16, that
other provision—codified at 28 U. S. C. §1292(d)(4)—au-
thorizes interlocutory appeals. See §1292(d)(4)(A). But un-
like §16, the text of that other provision specifies that, upon
an interlocutory appeal, “proceedings shall be . . . stayed
until the appeal has been decided.” §1292(d)(4)(B). This
resembles the rule the majority adopts today for §16 ap-
peals. Yet Congress omitted it from §16, while simultane-
ously imposing it in §1292(d)(4).
Second, Congress expressly mandated a general interloc-
utory stay in another provision of the Federal Arbitration
Act. Section 3 pertains to a circumstance in which the trial
court is “satisfied” that an issue should be referred to arbi-
tration. 9 U. S. C. §3. In such a case, the statute expressly
provides that the trial court “shall on application of one of
the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration
has been had.” Ibid. (emphasis added). Again, the contrast
with §16 is stark. Congress specified a mandatory general
stay of trial court proceedings in §3 (when the trial court
determines that arbitration is warranted) but not §16(a)
(when the court determines that arbitration is unwar-
ranted).
The majority opinion waves away these mandatory-gen-
eral-stay provisions by jerry-rigging explanations for why
Congress mandated those stays expressly without doing so
in §16. Ante, at 8–9. But the point remains: Congress fo-
cused on stays when crafting the 1988 law and the Federal
Arbitration Act. And when it intended to mandate interloc-
utory stays, it said so expressly. Nothing stopped Congress
from doing so in §16—yet it chose not to. This underscores
that §16 does not mandate a stay.1
——————
1 The majority’s explanation for why Congress mandated a stay in 28
4 COINBASE, INC. v. BIELSKI
JACKSON, J., dissenting
Given all this, it is no surprise that Congress’s enact-
ments barely figure into the majority opinion. The manda-
tory-general-stay rule is so untethered from §16 that the
statutory text has no role in the Court’s reasoning.
And when Congress’s work finally does take the stage
near the end of the Court’s analysis, it plays a minor part.
See ante, at 6–7. The Court notes that other statutes ex-
pressly provide that appeals do not automatically stay dis-
trict court proceedings. Ante, at 7, and n. 6. From this, the
Court tries to draw an across-the-board inference that, un-
less Congress expressly disavows the majority’s manda-
tory-general-stay rule, that rule applies.
The Court’s inference fails. The statutes that the major-
——————
U. S. C. §1292(d)(4) also makes no sense. According to the majority, Con-
gress usually remains silent when it intends to mandate a stay. Ante, at
6–7, 8–9. Congress expressly imposed a mandatory stay in §1292(d)(4),
the majority says, only because a pre-existing provision, §1292(d)(3),
would otherwise have made stays in §1292(d)(4) appeals discretionary.
Ante, at 8–9.
But that last point holds no water. Paragraph (3) has no bearing on
paragraph (4), because these two provisions govern different kinds of ap-
peals.
Specifically, paragraph (3) governs certain appeals by permission,
while paragraph (4) governs a separate set of appeals as of right. Para-
graph (3) addresses events unique to permissive appeals: “Neither the
application for nor the granting of an appeal” stays trial court proceed-
ings. §1292(d)(3) (emphasis added). Paragraph (3) thus corresponds to
paragraphs (1) and (2), which authorize permissive appeals “if applica-
tion is made” and granted. §§1292(d)(1)–(2). Meanwhile, paragraph (4)
separately authorizes certain as-of-right appeals, §1292(d)(4)(A), and it
imposes mandatory stays in such appeals, §1292(d)(4)(B). In an appeal
as of right under paragraph (4), paragraph (3) never kicks in, because
there is no “application for” or “granting of ” an appeal, §1292(d)(3).
Thus, the majority’s story—that Congress needed express stay lan-
guage to avoid overlap with paragraph (3)—turns on a red herring.
There is no such overlap. Instead, only the more straightforward expla-
nation remains: Congress imposed a mandatory general stay in
§1292(d)(4)—but not 9 U. S. C. §16—because it intended such a stay un-
der the former but not the latter.
Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 5
JACKSON, J., dissenting
ity points to have nothing to do with arbitration or §16 (un-
like the two provisions discussed above, which were enacted
in the same 1988 law as §16 and codified alongside §16 in
the Federal Arbitration Act, respectively, supra, at 3).
Moreover, and in any event, the majority’s cited statutes
do not support the majority’s mandatory-general-stay rule.
The majority invokes statutes that expressly preclude au-
tomatic stays of all trial court proceedings. But if the ma-
jority is correct that Congress intended the opposite when
a statute is silent, then stays of all trial court proceedings
would be required. Yet, the majority’s own holding does not
go that far. See ante, at 4, n. 2. Instead, the majority re-
quires stays for some proceedings (those related to the mer-
its) but not others (those related to costs and fees), ibid.—a
line that appears nowhere in the majority’s cited statutes.
At the end of the day, the best the majority can do is point
to a smattering of provisions that do not contain the rule
that the majority adopts. And those provisions do not even
relate to §16 or the majority’s rule (staying litigation gener-
ally but not proceedings on costs and fees). Neither those
statutes, nor any other, imposes on arbitrability appeals the
stay rule that the Court announces.
II
Unable to locate its rule in a statute, the majority opinion
pivots to “background principle[s].” Ante, at 3. But there is
no background mandatory-general-stay rule.
To the contrary, the background rule is that courts have
case-by-case discretion regarding whether or not to issue a
stay. “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the
power inherent in every court to control the disposition of
the causes on its docket.” Landis v. North American Co.,
299 U. S. 248, 254 (1936). That power is discretionary—it
“calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh com-
peting interests” in each particular case. Id., at 254–255.
6 COINBASE, INC. v. BIELSKI
JACKSON, J., dissenting
One key to this discretionary-stay tradition is its “supple-
ness of adaptation to varying conditions.” Id., at 256. A
stay “is not a matter of right” and cannot be imposed “re-
flexively.” Nken, 556 U. S., at 427 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
That has long been the default rule. A court’s discretion
“to grant a stay pending review” is “firmly imbedded in our
judicial system, consonant with the historic procedures of
federal appellate courts.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks
omitted). It is “a power as old as the judicial system of the
nation.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted); see 28
U. S. C. §1651(a) (All Writs Act, originally enacted in 1789,
1 Stat. 81–82).
Significantly for present purposes, discretionary stays
are the default for interlocutory appeals in particular—and
this dates back to the first federal interlocutory-appeal stat-
ute in 1891. Judiciary Act of 1891, §7, 26 Stat. 828; see 15A
C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Pro-
cedure §3906, p. 346 (3d ed. 2022). There, Congress estab-
lished that “proceedings . . . in the court below shall not be
stayed unless otherwise ordered by that court during the
pendency of such appeal.” §7, 26 Stat. 828 (emphasis
added).
That statute cemented a background discretionary-stay
rule that governed even where Congress was silent—as this
Court has repeatedly recognized. Shortly after the 1891
Act, a case arose under conditions in which the Act was si-
lent about whether a stay should issue. In re Haberman
Mfg. Co., 147 U. S. 525, 530 (1893) (finding “no express pro-
vision” on point). This Court applied the background rule:
“[T]he Circuit Court had a discretion to grant or refuse” a
stay. Ibid. Another case of statutory silence arose a few
years later. In re McKenzie, 180 U. S. 536, 550–551 (1901).
Again, this Court reiterated federal courts’ “inherent power
. . . to stay or supersede proceedings on appeal” from an in-
terlocutory order. Id., at 551. As this Court summarized in
Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 7
JACKSON, J., dissenting
yet another case, the rule is that the trial court has “author-
ity” during an interlocutory appeal “to take further proceed-
ings in the cause, unless in its discretion it orders them to
be stayed, pending the appeal.” Smith v. Vulcan Iron
Works, 165 U. S. 518, 525 (1897). That authority is “recog-
nized” by the 1891 Act but existed already as a traditional
matter, “often exercised by other courts of chancery.” Ibid.This was the background against which Congress en-
acted §16. And—importantly—courts understood stays as
discretionary with respect to interlocutory appeals concern-
ing arbitrability. Before Congress enacted §16, parties
brought interlocutory arbitrability appeals under other
sources of appellate jurisdiction, and courts treated stays as
discretionary, not mandatory.2 Yet, according to the major-
ity, Congress sought to displace that common understand-
ing when it enacted §16—without saying anything at all
about stays pending appeal.
Even setting all that aside, the majority opinion’s reli-
ance on a “background” rule, ante, at 3, still fails. The ma-
jority has not shown that its own rule (the mandatory-gen-
eral-stay rule) existed as a background matter when
Congress enacted §16 in 1988. Indeed, the majority opinion
does not identify a single case in which this Court imposed
a mandatory general stay of pre-trial and trial proceedings
pending an interlocutory appeal. Not in an arbitration
case. Not in an analogous case about the proper adjudica-
tory forum for a dispute. Not in any interlocutory appeal at
all.
——————
2 See, e.g., Pearce v. E. F. Hutton Group, Inc., 828 F. 2d 826, 829 (CADC
1987); Maxum Foundations, Inc. v. Salus Corp., 779 F. 2d 974, 977 (CA4
1985); Matterhorn, Inc. v. NCR Corp., 727 F. 2d 629, 630 (CA7 1984);
Lummus Co. v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Co., 273 F. 2d 613, 613–614
(CA1 1959) (per curiam); Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of Am., 235 F. 2d
209, 211 (CA2 1956) (per curiam).
8 COINBASE, INC. v. BIELSKI
JACKSON, J., dissenting
III
Because neither the statute nor any background law
states that an interlocutory appeal over arbitrability trig-
gers a mandatory general stay of trial court proceedings,
the majority opinion resorts to spinning such a rule from a
single sentence in Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount
Co., 459 U. S. 56 (1982) (per curiam). But Griggs expresses
a far narrower principle, and is thus insufficient to support
the majority’s mandatory-general-stay rule.
Griggs stands for a modest proposition: Two courts
should avoid exercising control over the same order or judg-
ment simultaneously. The problem Griggs identifies is the
“danger a district court and a court of appeals would be sim-
ultaneously analyzing the same judgment.” Id., at 59. The
cure Griggs prescribes is that “[t]he filing of a notice of ap-
peal . . . divests the district court of its control over those
aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Id., at 58.
And the reason is simple. Two courts simultaneously an-
alyzing the same judgment could step on each other’s toes.
It would interfere with the appellate court’s review of an
order if the district court modified that order mid-appeal.
Instead, an order should be reviewed by one court at a time.
This notion of “one order, one reviewing court” is all that
was at issue in Griggs. Griggs concerned a party that tried
to appeal a judgment while the District Court was still con-
sidering whether to alter that same judgment. Id., at 56.
The Court held that the appeal needed to wait until after
the District Court’s work on that judgment was done. Id.,at 60–61. This result, which followed from the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure, was necessary to “avoi[d]” the
situation “in which district courts and courts of appeals
would both have had the power to modify the same judg-
ment.” Id., at 60 (emphasis added).
Properly understood and applied here, Griggs divests the
district court of control over only a narrow slice of the case.
The interlocutory appeal addresses an order declining to
Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 9
JACKSON, J., dissenting
compel arbitration. Griggs merely prevents the district
court from modifying that order—i.e., Griggs prevents the
district judge from revisiting whether to compel arbitration
while the appeal is pending. Griggs does not stop the dis-
trict court from proceeding on matters other than arbitra-
bility.
The majority opinion, however, transmogrifies Griggs
into a sweeping stay of “pre-trial and trial proceedings” on
not just arbitrability, but also the merits. Ante, at 1. Ac-
cording to the majority, if the question on appeal is
“whether the litigation may go forward in the district
court,” then the district court loses control over “the entire
case.” Ante, at 3–4 (emphasis added; internal quotation
marks omitted).
That rule far surpasses the statement in Griggs—the sole
statement on which the majority relies—that a district
court loses “control over those aspects of the case involved
in the appeal.” 459 U. S., at 58; ante, at 3. Only the arbi-
trability order is on appeal, not the merits. And those mat-
ters are distinct. As this Court recognized (before Congress
enacted §16), “arbitrability” is “easily severable from the
merits of the underlying disputes.” Moses H. Cone Memo-
rial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U. S. 1, 21
(1983).
The majority cannot justify why it treats these “easily
severable” matters as intertwined in an arbitrability ap-
peal. “[T]he question on appeal,” as the majority opinion
correctly identifies, is “whether the case belongs in arbitra-
tion.” Ante, at 3. But the questions remaining before the
district court are different: whether the claims have merit,
whether the parties are entitled to the discovery they seek,
and so on. Proceedings on those questions would not inter-
fere with the appellate court’s review of the arbitrability or-
der. Those proceedings, in other words, do not implicate the
Griggs principle, which addresses the “danger a district
10 COINBASE, INC. v. BIELSKI
JACKSON, J., dissenting
court and a court of appeals would be simultaneously ana-
lyzing the same judgment.” 459 U. S., at 59.
The Court today expands Griggs beyond what the Con-
gress that enacted §16 could have foreseen, let alone si-
lently incorporated. Indeed, the majority can identify no
other time this Court wielded Griggs to mandate a stay of
all merits proceedings just because a distinct procedural
question was on appeal.
In fact, the majority’s supercharged version of Griggs con-
tradicts its own account of Congress’s intent. Consider the
statutes that the majority points to as models of how Con-
gress would reject a mandatory-general-stay rule. Ante, at
6–7, and n. 6; see supra, at 4–5. Under those statutes, the
majority says, Congress intends that an interlocutory ap-
peal does “not . . . automatically stay district court proceed-
ings.” Ante, at 7. Yet, the majority also seemingly accepts
that under those statutes, “the Griggs principle applies.”
Ante, at 5. And per “the Griggs principle” as the majority
sees it, in some cases an interlocutory appeal does automat-
ically stay district court proceedings. Ante, at 3–4. So a
mandatory general stay is thus both prohibited (by the stat-
utory text) and required (by the majority’s view of Griggs).3
As this contradiction underscores, the majority’s holding is
untethered from any statute and any existing conception of
——————
3 This contradiction arises, for example, under 28 U. S. C. §1292(b), one
of the statutes that the majority cites as prohibiting mandatory general
stays. See ante, at 7, n. 6 (citing Act of Sept. 2, 1958, Pub. L. 85–919, 72
Stat. 1770 (codified at §1292(b))). Section 1292(b) authorizes permissive
interlocutory appeals from a wide range of orders involving “controlling
question[s] of law”—including rulings on arbitrability. Arbitrability ap-
peals under §1292(b) were commonplace when Congress enacted 9
U. S. C. §16 in 1988. See, e.g., Danford v. Schwabacher, 488 F. 2d 454,
457 (CA9 1973) (“Since 1958 interlocutory arbitration orders have been
reviewable in accordance with the procedures prescribed by 28 U. S. C.
§1292(b)”). And in a §1292(b) arbitrability appeal, the majority’s reading
of §1292(b) would prohibit a mandatory general stay, while the majority’s
view of Griggs would require one.
Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 11
JACKSON, J., dissenting
Griggs.
IV
To justify its new mandatory-general-stay rule, the ma-
jority ultimately rests on its assessment of what is “sensi-
ble.” Ante, at 5–6. But even the majority’s policy concerns
do not support its rule.
The dispute here turns on a subset of cases—those in
which a stay is not warranted under the usual discretionary
standard. See Nken, 556 U. S., at 434. All agree that an
interlocutory appeal should trigger a stay if that standard
is met. But the majority goes further and requires a stay in
all cases. Indeed, the majority mandates a stay even if none
of the traditional stay prerequisites are present: likelihood
of success on the merits, irreparable harm, favorable bal-
ance of equities, and alignment with the public interest.
See ibid.The majority offers no good reason for that result. The
majority says that an automatic stay protects the party
seeking arbitration and conserves resources in case the dis-
pute “ultimately head[s] to arbitration” after appeal. Ante,
at 6. But the concern fades if that scenario is unrealistic—
i.e., if the party seeking arbitration is unlikely to succeed
on appeal.
The majority’s concern is even weaker when a stay would
harm the opposing party and the public interest much more
than it would protect the party seeking arbitration. Take,
for example, a case in which crucial evidence would be lost
if discovery is delayed. Say a witness is on her deathbed.
Under the majority’s rule, if an interlocutory arbitrability
appeal under §16(a) is pending, discovery must be stayed
and the evidence must be lost. That is apparently so even
if the parties agree they wish to proceed with discovery.
The majority’s rule also prevents courts from crafting
case-specific solutions to balance all the interests at stake.
Under the traditional discretionary-stay rule, for instance,
12 COINBASE, INC. v. BIELSKI
JACKSON, J., dissenting
a judge could allow the parties to conduct only the forms of
discovery that would also be permitted in arbitration. That
would save time and leave nobody worse off even if, as the
majority fears, the dispute ultimately heads to arbitration.
But this kind of equitable resolution, which the court and
the parties might consider “sensible,” ante, at 6, is forbidden
under the majority’s mandatory-general-stay rule.
In addition, for each of the majority’s concerns favoring a
mandatory stay, there are countervailing considerations.
The majority professes interest in “efficiency.” Ibid. But
forcing district court proceedings to a halt—for months or
years while the appeal runs its course—is itself inefficient.
The majority also fears losing other “asserted benefits of ar-
bitration” without a stay. Ibid. But with a stay, the party
opposing arbitration loses the benefits of immediate litiga-
tion. A plaintiff’s request for injunctive protection against
imminent harm, for example, goes unanswered under the
majority’s rule. Similarly, while the majority laments set-
tlement pressure on parties seeking arbitration, ibid., the
rule it announces imposes settlement pressure in the oppo-
site direction. With justice delayed while the case is on
hold, parties “could be forced to settle,” ibid., because they
do not wish—or cannot afford—to leave their claims in
limbo. Incongruously, the majority inflicts these burdens
on the party that won the arbitrability issue before the dis-
trict court (the party opposing arbitration).
In categorically resolving these conflicts in favor of the
pro-arbitration party, the majority’s analysis comes down
to this: Because the pro-arbitration party gets an interlocu-
tory appeal, it should also get an automatic stay. Ibid.; see
L. Numeroff, If You Give a Mouse a Cookie (1985). But Con-
gress was entitled to give one without the other. And the
right to interlocutory appeal is valuable on its own. It is, as
the majority explains, “a rare statutory exception to the
usual rule that parties may not appeal before final judg-
ment.” Ante, at 3. Even without a stay, if the interlocutory
Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 13
JACKSON, J., dissenting
appeal succeeds, the pro-arbitration party gets its wish and
the dispute goes to arbitration.
Perhaps for those reasons, real-life parties do not agree
with the majority that an interlocutory arbitrability appeal
is pointless without an automatic stay. No stay was issued
in this case, for example, yet Coinbase still pursued its in-
terlocutory appeal. Nor did other parties stop bringing in-
terlocutory arbitrability appeals in the Circuits that had in-
terpreted §16 to impose no automatic stay.4
Yet this Court steps in to give the pro-arbitration party
the additional right to an automatic stay that Congress
withheld. Now, any defendant that devises a non-frivolous
argument for arbitration can not only appeal, but also press
pause on the case—leaving plaintiffs to suffer harm, lose
evidence, and bleed dry their patience and funding in the
meantime. To confer that power on a class of litigants,
based on blanket judgments resolving competing policy con-
cerns, is Congress’s domain, not ours. And where Congress
is silent, the job of managing particular litigation, in light
of the concrete circumstances presented, belongs to the
judge closest to a case.
——————
4 For over a decade, the Second, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits have all held
that a §16(a) appeal triggers no mandatory general stay. Motorola Credit
Corp. v. Uzan, 388 F. 3d 39, 53–54 (CA2 2004); Britton v. Co-op Banking
Group, 916 F. 2d 1405, 1412 (CA9 1990); Weingarten Realty Investors v.
Miller, 661 F. 3d 904, 907–910 (CA5 2011). And those Circuits face no
shortage of interlocutory §16(a) appeals. See, e.g., Palacios v. Alifine
Dining, Inc., 2023 WL 2469765 (CA2, Mar. 13, 2023); Laurel v. Cintas
Corp., 2023 WL 2363686 (CA9, Mar. 6, 2023); NATS, Inc. v. Radiation
Shield Technologies, Inc., 2023 WL 2416160 (CA2, Mar. 9, 2023); Hill v.
Xerox Bus. Servs., LLC, 59 F. 4th 457 (CA9 2023); Johnson v. Walmart
Inc., 57 F. 4th 677 (CA9 2023); Noble Capital Fund Mgmt., LLC v. US
Capital Global Inv. Mgmt., LLC, 31 F. 4th 333 (CA5 2022); Forby v. One
Technologies, LP, 13 F. 4th 460 (CA5 2021); Soliman v. Subway Franchi-
see Adv. Fund Trust, Ltd., 999 F. 3d 828 (CA2 2021); Polyflow, LLC v.
Specialty RTP, LLC, 993 F. 3d 295 (CA5 2021).
14 COINBASE, INC. v. BIELSKI
JACKSON, J., dissenting
V
The Court today ventures down an uncharted path—and
that way lies madness. Never before had this Court man-
dated a general stay simply because an interlocutory appeal
poses the question “whether the litigation may go forward
in the district court.” Ante, at 3 (internal quotation marks
omitted). And a wide array of appeals seemingly fits that
bill.
Indeed, any appeal over the proper forum for a dispute
would arguably raise the same question. After all, “an ar-
bitration agreement is ‘a specialized kind of forum-selection
clause.’ ” Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U. S.
___, ___ (2022) (slip op., at 11) (quoting Scherk v. Alberto-
Culver Co., 417 U. S. 506, 519 (1974)). If arbitration ap-
peals require stays of all pre-trial and trial proceedings,
why not all appeals about forum-selection agreements?
And why not appeals over non-contractual disputes over the
proper adjudicator, like venue, personal jurisdiction, forum
non conveniens, federal-court jurisdiction, and abstention?
For that matter, “virtually every right that could be en-
forced appropriately by pretrial dismissal might loosely be
described as conferring a ‘right not to stand trial.’ ” Digital
Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U. S. 863, 873
(1994). “Such motions can be made in virtually every case.”
Ibid. Does every interlocutory appeal concerning a case-dis-
positive issue now trigger a mandatory general stay of trial
court proceedings?
Taken that broadly, the mandatory-general-stay rule the
Court adopts today would upend federal litigation as we
know it. Aware that any interlocutory appeal on a disposi-
tive issue grinds the plaintiff’s case to a halt, defendants
would presumably pursue that tactic at every opportunity.
This would occur, for example, in interlocutory appeals
available as of right under 28 U. S. C. §1292(a)(1) from or-
ders granting preliminary injunctions. Any defense lawyer
worth her salt would invoke the right to take that appeal
Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 15
JACKSON, J., dissenting
and throw up some objection—to venue, jurisdiction, or a
dispositive element of the merits—to trigger a mandatory
stay. For plaintiffs, then, every preliminary-injunction mo-
tion becomes a trap: Even if the motion is granted, the de-
fendant can take that opportunity to stop the trial court
proceedings in their tracks.
Facing these destabilizing consequences, the majority
stops short of following its own reasoning to that ominous
conclusion. Today’s holding reaches only arbitration ap-
peals under §16(a). Ante, at 1, 7. And it might well be that
the concerns motivating today’s mandatory-general-stay
rule do not extend beyond arbitration. So the majority will
not commit, for example, to concluding that appeals over
non-arbitration forum-selection clauses warrant the same
mandatory stay. Ante, at 9.
I agree with that hesitation—even one step further down
this path is much too far. The mandatory-general-stay rule
that the Court manufactures is unmoored from Congress’s
commands and this Court’s precedent. And the windfall
that the Court gives to defendants seeking arbitration, pref-
erencing their interests over all others, is entirely unwar-
ranted. The Court now mandates that result no matter how
unjust that outcome is, according to traditional equitable
standards, in a given case. This endeavor is unfounded, un-
wise, and—most fundamentally—not our role.