Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-105_5536.pdf
Page Number: 27.0

14 

COINBASE, INC. v. BIELSKI 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

V 
The Court today ventures down an uncharted path—and
that way lies madness.  Never before had this Court man-
dated a general stay simply because an interlocutory appeal
poses the question “whether the litigation may go forward
in the district court.”  Ante, at 3 (internal quotation marks 
omitted).  And a wide array of appeals seemingly fits that 
bill. 

Indeed,  any  appeal  over  the  proper  forum  for  a  dispute
would arguably raise the same question.  After all, “an ar-
bitration agreement is ‘a specialized kind of forum-selection
clause.’ ”  Viking  River  Cruises,  Inc.  v.  Moriana,  596  U. S. 
___, ___ (2022) (slip op., at 11) (quoting Scherk v. Alberto-
Culver  Co.,  417  U. S.  506,  519  (1974)).    If  arbitration  ap-
peals  require  stays  of  all  pre-trial  and  trial  proceedings,
why  not  all  appeals  about  forum-selection  agreements? 
And why not appeals over non-contractual disputes over the 
proper adjudicator, like venue, personal jurisdiction, forum 
non conveniens, federal-court jurisdiction, and abstention? 
For that matter, “virtually every right that could be en-
forced appropriately by pretrial dismissal might loosely be 
described as conferring a ‘right not to stand trial.’ ”  Digital 
Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U. S. 863, 873 
(1994).  “Such motions can be made in virtually every case.” 
Ibid.  Does every interlocutory appeal concerning a case-dis-
positive issue now trigger a mandatory general stay of trial 
court proceedings? 

Taken that broadly, the mandatory-general-stay rule the 
Court  adopts  today  would  upend  federal  litigation  as  we
know it.  Aware that any interlocutory appeal on a disposi-
tive  issue  grinds  the  plaintiff’s  case  to  a  halt,  defendants 
would presumably pursue that tactic at every opportunity. 
This  would  occur,  for  example,  in  interlocutory  appeals 
available as of right under 28 U. S. C. §1292(a)(1) from or-
ders granting preliminary injunctions.  Any defense lawyer
worth her salt would invoke the right to take that appeal