Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Coinbase, Inc. v Bielski. In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a non-frivolous appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration oust a district court’s jurisdiction to proceed with litigation pending appeal? The case was decided on June 23, 2023. The Supreme Court held that a district court must stay its proceedings while an interlocutory appeal taken pursuant to 9 U-S-C §16(a) on the question of arbitrability is ongoing. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court. The Court recognized in Griggs v Provident Consumer Discount Co. that an appeal, including an interlocutory appeal, “divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” The Griggs principle controls the outcome of this case. If district courts could proceed while an appeal on arbitrability is ongoing, the benefits of arbitration, such as efficiency and reduced costs, would be lost and parties could feel pressured to settle to avoid district court proceedings they initially sought to avoid through arbitration. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined, and in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined in part. Justice Jackson pointed out that 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 for the trial judge to make particularized determinations at their discretion. Justice Jackson argued that this discretionary decision-making process promotes procedural fairness, and there is no reason to remove that discretion in this case. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.