Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-105_5536.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

Coquillette,  G.  Joseph,  G.  Vairo,  &  C.  Varner,  Moore’s 
Federal Practice §203.12[3][a] (3d ed. 2022).  Similarly, the
Wright  and  Miller  treatise  endorses  the  automatic  stay
requirement  in  arbitration  cases.  The  treatise  explains 
that a “complete stay of district-court proceedings pending 
appeal  from  a  refusal  to  order  arbitration  is  desirable” 
because  “[c]ontinued  trial-court  proceedings  pending
appeal could lead to an entirely wasted trial if arbitration
is  ordered  on  appeal.”  15B  C.  Wright,  A.  Miller,  &  E. 
Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §3914.17, p. 7 (2d 
ed., Supp. 2022).  In the Circuits that have considered the 
issue in the analogous contexts of qualified immunity and 
double  jeopardy,  moreover,  district  courts  likewise  must
the 
automatically 
interlocutory  appeal  is  ongoing.4   Similarly,  as  Bielski
acknowledges,  courts  have  held  that  the  Griggs  principle 
applies to those aspects of the case involved in a certified
interlocutory appeal under 28 U. S. C. §1292(b).5 

proceedings  while 

their 

stay 

The common practice in §16(a) cases, therefore, is for a
district court to stay its proceedings while the interlocutory
appeal on arbitrability is ongoing.  That common practice
reflects common sense.  Absent an automatic stay of district
court proceedings, Congress’s decision in §16(a) to afford a
right to an interlocutory appeal would be largely nullified. 

—————— 

4 E.g., United States v. Montgomery, 262 F. 3d 233, 239–240 (CA4 2001) 
(double jeopardy); United States v. LaMere, 951 F. 2d 1106, 1108 (CA9 
1991) (same); United States v. Grabinski, 674 F. 2d 677, 679 (CA8 1982) 
(same); United States v. Dunbar, 611 F. 2d 985, 988–989 (CA5 1980) (en 
banc)  (same);  Chuman  v.  Wright,  960  F. 2d  104,  105  (CA9  1992) 
(qualified immunity); Yates v.  Cleveland, 941 F. 2d 444, 448–449 (CA6 
1991) (same); Apostol v. Gallion, 870 F. 2d 1335, 1338 (CA7 1989) (same); 
Stewart v. Donges, 915 F. 2d 572, 575–576 (CA10 1990) (both). 

5 See Tr. of Oral Arg. 60–61; see also Green Leaf Nursery v. E. I. DuPont 
De Nemours and Co., 341 F. 3d 1292, 1309 (CA11 2003); Los Angeles v. 
Santa  Monica  Baykeeper,  254  F. 3d  882,  885–886  (CA9  2001);  Dayton 
Independent  School  Dist.  v.  U. S.  Mineral  Prods.  Co.,  906  F. 2d  1059, 
1063–1064 (CA5 1990).