Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-105_5536.pdf
Page Number: 26

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).