Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-105_5536.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

Cite as:  599 U. S. ____ (2023) 

3 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

First, Congress expressly mandated a general interlocu-
tory  stay  in  another  provision  of  the  same  1988  law  that
enacted §16.  See 102 Stat. 4652, 4670–4671.  Like §16, that
other  provision—codified  at  28  U. S. C.  §1292(d)(4)—au-
thorizes interlocutory appeals.  See §1292(d)(4)(A).  But un-
like §16, the text of that other provision specifies that, upon 
an  interlocutory  appeal,  “proceedings  shall  be  . . .  stayed
until  the  appeal  has  been  decided.”    §1292(d)(4)(B).    This 
resembles  the  rule  the  majority  adopts  today  for  §16  ap-
peals.  Yet Congress omitted it from §16, while simultane-
ously imposing it in §1292(d)(4). 

Second, Congress expressly mandated a general interloc-
utory stay in another provision of the Federal Arbitration 
Act.  Section 3 pertains to a circumstance in which the trial 
court is “satisfied” that an issue should be referred to arbi-
tration.  9 U. S. C. §3.  In such a case, the statute expressly
provides that the trial court “shall on application of one of
the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration 
has been had.”  Ibid. (emphasis added).  Again, the contrast
with §16 is stark.  Congress specified a mandatory general 
stay  of  trial  court  proceedings  in  §3  (when  the  trial  court
determines  that  arbitration  is  warranted)  but  not  §16(a) 
(when  the  court  determines  that  arbitration  is  unwar-
ranted).

The majority opinion waves away these mandatory-gen-
eral-stay  provisions  by  jerry-rigging  explanations  for  why 
Congress mandated those stays expressly without doing so
in §16.  Ante, at 8–9.  But the point remains: Congress fo-
cused on stays when crafting the 1988 law and the Federal 
Arbitration Act.  And when it intended to mandate interloc-
utory stays, it said so expressly.  Nothing stopped Congress
from doing so in §16—yet it chose not to.  This underscores 
that §16 does not mandate a stay.1 

—————— 

1 The majority’s explanation for why Congress mandated a stay in 28