Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-1218_5357.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

Cite as:  601 U. S. ____ (2024) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

___ (2024). 

II 
In this statutory interpretation case, text, structure, and
purpose  all  point  to  the  same  conclusion:  When  a  federal 
court  finds  that  a  dispute  is  subject  to  arbitration,  and  a 
party has requested a stay of the court proceeding pending 
arbitration,  the  court  does  not  have  discretion  to  dismiss 
the suit on the basis that all the claims are subject to arbi-
tration.2 

Section 3 of the FAA, entitled “Stay of proceedings where
issue therein referable to arbitration,” provides that, when 
any issue in a suit is subject to arbitration, the court 

“shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial 

—————— 

The split on the question has since deepened.  Compare Arabian Mo-
tors Group W.L.L. v. Ford Motor Co., 19 F. 4th 938, 941–943 (CA6 2021) 
(reading §3 to mandate a stay when all claims are subject to arbitration
and  a  party  properly  requests  a  stay);  Katz  v.  Cellco  Partnership,  794 
F. 3d  341,  345–347  (CA2  2015)  (same);  Lloyd  v.  HOVENSA,  LLC,  369 
F. 3d 263, 269–271 (CA3 2004) (same); Adair Bus Sales, Inc. v. Blue Bird 
Corp., 25 F. 3d 953, 955 (CA10 1994) (same); Bender v. A.G. Edwards & 
Sons, Inc., 971 F. 2d 698, 699 (CA11 1992) (per curiam) (same); Halim v. 
Great  Gatsby’s  Auction  Gallery,  Inc.,  516  F. 3d  557,  561  (CA7  2008) 
(reaching  the  same  conclusion  even  where  no  party  requested  a  stay), 
with Green v. SuperShuttle Int’l, Inc., 653 F. 3d 766, 769–770 (CA8 2011)
(recognizing a district court’s discretion to dismiss, rather than stay, ac-
tion where all of the issues are subject to arbitration); Bercovitch v. Bald-
win School, Inc., 133 F. 3d 141, 156, n. 21 (CA1 1998) (same); Alford v. 
Dean  Witter  Reynolds,  Inc.,  975  F. 2d  1161,  1164  (CA5  1992)  (same); 
Sparling  v.  Hoffman  Constr.  Co.,  864  F. 2d  635,  637–638  (CA9  1988) 
(same).

2 That is not to say that the court is barred from dismissing the suit if
there is a separate reason to dismiss, unrelated to the fact that an issue
in the case is subject to arbitration.  If, for example, the court lacks ju-
risdiction, §3 is no bar to dismissing on that basis.  See Exxon Mobil Corp. 
v.  Allapattah  Services,  Inc.,  545  U. S.  546,  552  (2005)  (observing  that
“[t]he district courts of the United States . . . are ‘courts of limited juris-
diction’ ” and “ ‘possess only that power authorized by Constitution and 
statute’ ”).