Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-1218_5357.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2023 

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 

SMITH ET AL. v. SPIZZIRRI ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

No. 22–1218.  Argued April 22, 2024—Decided May 16, 2024 

The  Federal  Arbitration  Act  (FAA)  sets  forth  procedures  for  enforcing 
arbitration agreements in federal court.  Section 3 of the FAA, entitled 
“Stay of proceedings where issue therein referable to arbitration,” pro-
vides that when a dispute is subject to arbitration, the court “shall on 
application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such 
arbitration  has  been  had  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  agree-
ment, providing the applicant for the stay is not in default in proceed-
ing with such arbitration.”  9 U. S. C. §3.  In this case, petitioners filed 
suit  against  respondents  in  state  court  alleging  violations  of  federal 
and  state  employment  laws.  Respondents  then  removed  to  federal 
court  and  filed  a  motion  to  compel  arbitration  and  dismiss  the  suit. 
Petitioners agreed their claims were arbitrable, but contended that §3
of the FAA required the District Court to stay the action pending arbi-
tration rather than dismissing it entirely.  The District Court issued 
an order compelling arbitration and dismissed the case without preju-
dice.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed. 

Held: When a district court finds that a lawsuit involves an arbitrable 
dispute and a party has requested a stay of the court proceeding pend-
ing arbitration, §3 compels the court to issue a stay, and the court lacks 
discretion to dismiss the suit.  Statutory text, structure, and purpose 
all point to this conclusion.  The plain text of §3 requires a court to stay
the proceeding upon request.  The statute’s use of the word “shall” “cre-
ates  an  obligation  impervious to  judicial discretion.”  Lexecon  Inc.  v. 
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U. S. 26, 35.  The obliga-
tion is to “stay” the proceeding.  Respondents insist that “stay” “means 
only that the court must stop parallel in-court litigation, which a court 
may  achieve  by  dismissing,”  Brief  for  Respondents  15,  but  respond-
ents’  reading  disregards  the  long-established  legal  meaning  of  the