Coinbase v. Suski

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Coinbase v Suski.      In this case, the court considered this issue: when parties enter into an arbitration agreement with a delegation clause, does an arbitrator or a court decide whether that arbitration agreement is narrowed by a later contract that is silent as to arbitration and delegation? The case was decided on May 23, 2024. The Supreme Court held that where parties have agreed to two contracts—one sending arbitrability disputes to arbitration, and the other either explicitly or implicitly sending arbitrability disputes to the courts—a court must decide which contract governs. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. When a court faces a situation where parties have agreed to two contracts that conflict on the question of who decides the arbitrability of disputes—the courts or an arbitrator—a court must determine which contract governs. Parties can form multiple levels of agreements concerning arbitration, leading to different kinds of disputes: first-order (merits of the dispute), second-order (whether they agreed to arbitrate the merits), and third-order (who decides the second-order question). This case involves a fourth-order dispute: which contract applies when there are conflicting agreements on who decides arbitrability. This question must be answered by a court, not an arbitrator. The severability principle does not require parties to challenge only the arbitration or delegation provision, and the issue of California state law is outside the scope of the question presented. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.