Corporate Accountability

RELEASE: Justices Should Reject Coinbase’s Attempt to Craft Special Rules for Companies Seeking Arbitration

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Coinbase v. Bielski and Coinbase v. Suski, two cases in which Coinbase is trying to make it more difficult for individuals who have been injured by the company to have their day in court, Constitutional Accountability Center Appellate Counsel Smita Ghosh issued the following reaction:

The Supreme Court heard argument today in two cases in which consumers hope to hold Coinbase accountable in court for various alleged violations of state and federal law. Coinbase has been seeking to keep these consumers out of court, arguing that they agreed to arbitrate their disputes in a click-through user agreement that the consumers allegedly agreed to when creating Coinbase accounts. And now, before the Supreme Court, Coinbase is arguing that the district court must pause the litigation in these cases while the court of appeals reviews the decision denying its effort to compel arbitration.

Coinbase’s argument is wrong. Indeed, it fundamentally distorts the statute on which it purports to rely. At argument this morning, several justices seemed to recognize as much, suggesting that Coinbase seems to seek a special rule not written into law for the benefit of companies seeking arbitration. As the Chief Justice observed, the arbitration statute Coinbase points to gives “huge benefits” to defendants invoking arbitration agreements, but it does not address the particular benefit—a stay of litigation—for which Coinbase is asking.

Echoing our brief on the issue, the Chief Justice emphasized that Coinbase seeks a privilege that is “not granted in the statute.” As our brief makes clear, Coinbase is attempting to read a lot into Congress’s silence. The company argues that Congress silently and invisibly imposed a categorical rule that would strip courts of the discretion to determine whether a stay is appropriate that they generally enjoy—an approach that is, as Justice Jackson put it, “exactly backwards.”

While the legal issues in the case may seem highly technical, the stakes are significant. As Justice Kagan pointed out, ruling in Coinbase’s favor would jeopardize consumers’ “right to have their case litigated in a courtroom” by permitting companies to delay the resolution of their claims. Fortunately for individuals seeking to hold companies like Coinbase accountable, the law is simply not on Coinbase’s side, and the Court should recognize that in these cases.

##

Resources:

Case page in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski & Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/coinbase-inc-v-bielski-coinbase-inc-v-suski/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a nonpartisan think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability
U.S. Supreme Court

Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T and Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission

In Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T and Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission, the Supreme Court is considering whether the FCC’s two-stage civil-enforcement process violates the Seventh Amendment.
Corporate Accountability
January 15, 2026

January Newsletter: CAC Keeps Up the Fight for Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Millennia Housing Management v. Department of Housing and Urban Development

In Millennia Housing Management v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is considering a challenge to the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s authority to...
Corporate Accountability
July 2, 2025

Moneyed Interests Still Prevail at the Supreme Court (2024-2025 Term)

The Court Continues to Favor Corporations over Workers, Consumers, and the Environment.
By: Brian R. Frazelle, Ana Builes
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Novartis v. Secretary United States Department of Health and Human Services

In Novartis v. Secretary United States Department of Health and Human Services, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit considered whether the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program is an unconstitutional...
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Boehringer Ingelheim v. Department of Health and Human Services

In Boehringer Ingelheim v. Department of Health and Human Services, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered whether the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program is an unconstitutional taking...