SCOTUS Adds a Second Arbitration Case to the 2025-2026 Docket

The U.S. Supreme Court this afternoon agreed to hear its second arbitration case of the 2025-2026 term,  Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, No. 25-83 (Supreme Court docket page available at https://bit.ly/4qZsL0z).

The case involves a deep dive into legal practice involving the Federal Arbitration Act. It focuses on the complex and arcane subject of jurisdiction. The question is on how federal courts may apply FAA Sections 9 and 10, which, respectively, authorize federal courts to hear arbitration award confirmations and challenges.

The specific issue presented by the petitioner is whether a federal court that initially exercises jurisdiction and stays a case pending arbitration maintains jurisdiction over a post-arbitration Section 9 or 10 application, where jurisdiction would otherwise be lacking.

CPR Speaks previewed Jules; for full details on the case, see Sasha Hill, “SCOTUS Review: Can Federal Courts Exercise Jurisdiction on Arbitration Awards After Staying a Case?” CPR Speaks (Nov. 17) (available at https://bit.ly/4aEONzI).

You can see Friday’s Supreme Court order list at https://bit.ly/48E8gOC. The Court Friday also agreed to hear a case on President Trump’s controversial plan to allow challenges to birthright citizenship under the U.S. Constitution (NBC News is updating on that case at https://bit.ly/3KgmOMl.)

The Court is expected to schedule arguments in both cases for this spring, with decisions before the term ends in June. 

* * *

Jules is the second arbitration case of the Court's current term. On Oct. 20, the Court agreed to hear Flowers Foods Inc. v. Brock,  No. 24-935. The case—the second time in two years Thomasville, Ga.’s Flowers Foods, which makes Wonder Bread, has been at the Supreme Court in an arbitration case--presents the issue of whether workers who deliver locally goods that travel in interstate commerce, but who do not transport the goods across borders nor interact with vehicles that cross borders, are transportation workers “engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” for purposes of the Federal Arbitration Act Sec. 1 exemption. The case is awaiting an argument date.

* * *

The author edits Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation for the CPR Institute.

[END]