Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-105_5536.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

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.