Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-1218_5357.pdf
Page Number: 7

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

directing a court to stay the proceeding “until such arbitra-
tion has been had in accordance with the terms of the agree-
ment,” and only so long as “the applicant . . . is not in de-
fault  in  proceeding  with  the  arbitration,”  §3  ensures  that
the parties can return to federal court if arbitration breaks 
down or fails to resolve the dispute.  That return ticket is 
not  available  if  the  court  dismisses  the  suit  rather  than 
staying it.3 

Respondents also suggest that, notwithstanding the stat-
utory language, district courts retain inherent authority to
dismiss proceedings subject to arbitration.  This attempt to
evade the plain meaning of the text also falls short.  Even 
assuming district courts have this inherent authority, “the 
inherent powers of the courts may be controlled or overrid-
den by statute or rule.”  Degen v. United States, 517 U. S. 
820, 823 (1996).  Section 3 does exactly that.  It overrides 
any discretion a district court might otherwise have had to
dismiss a suit when the parties have agreed to arbitration. 
If there were any doubt, the FAA’s structure and purpose
confirm that a stay is required.  When a court denies a re-
quest for arbitration, §16 of the FAA authorizes an imme-
diate  interlocutory  appeal.  See  9  U. S. C.  §16(a)(1)(C).
When  a  court  compels  arbitration,  by  contrast,  Congress
made clear that, absent certification of a controlling ques-
tion of law by the district court under 28 U. S. C. §1292(b), 
the order compelling arbitration is not immediately appeal-
able.  See 9 U. S. C. §16(b).  The choice to “provid[e] for im-
mediate interlocutory appeals of orders denying—but not of 
orders granting—motions to compel arbitration,” Coinbase, 
Inc. v. Bielski, 599 U. S. 736, 740 (2023), is consistent with 
Congress’s purpose in the FAA “to move the parties to an 

—————— 

3 It is no answer to say, as respondents do, that a party can file a new 
suit  in  federal  court  in  those  circumstances.    Even  if  that  is  true  as  a  
practical matter, but see Green, 653 F. 3d, at 770 (flagging potential stat-
ute-of-limitations problem), requiring a party to file a new suit ignores 
the plain text of §3.