Access to Justice

RELEASE: Lacking Grounding in Statutory Text, Conservative Majority Crafts Special Rules for Companies Seeking Arbitration

WASHINGTON, DC –  Following the Supreme Court’s announcement of its decision this morning in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, which makes it more difficult for consumers who have been injured by a company to have their day in court, Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) Appellate Counsel Smita Ghosh issued the following reaction:

In today’s decision, the Supreme Court vindicated Coinbase’s effort to frustrate consumers’ efforts to hold it accountable in court. Specifically, the majority agreed with Coinbase that, in cases where a company unsuccessfully seeks to force consumers to arbitrate, a district court must pause the litigation while the court of appeals reviews the denial of the effort to force arbitration. The Court acknowledged that Coinbase’s argument had no basis in the text of federal arbitration statutes, but nonetheless ruled for Coinbase based on “background principles.”

As Justice Jackson explained in her dissent, the Court’s requirement of a mandatory pause “comes out of nowhere” and is “untethered” from the text of federal arbitration statutes. As Jackson demonstrated, the majority “invents a new stay rule perpetually favoring one class of litigants—defendants seeking arbitration.” Jackson’s textualist argument, which echoed the one advanced in CAC’s amicus brief, appealed to justices across the ideological spectrum. Justice Thomas joined most of Jackson’s dissent, including the part that criticized the majority’s willingness to elevate its own “background principle” over the statutory text. The tendency to ignore a statute’s text and to focus instead on the justices’ policy preferences is an all-too-common feature of today’s Supreme Court majority.  As Justice Jackson cautioned at the end of her dissent, such insertion of policy preferences is “unfounded, unwise, and—most fundamentally—not our role.”

##

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 Access to Justice

Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Mick v. Gibbons

In Mick v. Gibbons, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is considering whether the doctrine of state sovereign immunity applies to third party subpoenas.
Access to Justice
July 23, 2024

Bissonnette and the Future of Federal Arbitration

The Regulatory Review
Every year, there are a handful of Supreme Court cases that do not make headlines...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Access to Justice
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court rejects artificial limit on liability for speech-based retaliation by government officers

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s Supreme Court decision in Gonzalez v. Trevino, a case in...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Access to Justice
May 9, 2024

RELEASE: In overbroad ruling, conservative majority restricts the rights of innocent car owners whose vehicles are seized by the government

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Culley v. Marshall, a...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Williams v. Washington

In Williams v. Washington, the Supreme Court is considering whether states may force civil rights litigants who bring claims against state officials in state court under Section 1983 to first exhaust their administrative remedies.
Access to Justice
April 12, 2024

RELEASE: Court Unanimously Rejects Atextual “Transportation Industry” Requirement for FAA Exemption, Allowing Truck Drivers Their Day in Court

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen