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
March 19, 2025

Fight over False Claims Act whistleblower provision heats up on appeal

Reuters
At first glance, it might seem far-fetched to suggest a whistleblower law that’s been on...
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Martin v. United States

In Martin v. United States, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Supremacy Clause overrides the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)’s express waiver of sovereign immunity when a federal employee’s actions “have some nexus with...
Access to Justice
February 21, 2025

TV (Gray DC): CAC’s Becker-Cohen Joins Gray DC to Discuss Procedural Due Process Claim in Death Row Case

Gray DC
Access to Justice
February 24, 2025

RELEASE: As Justice Jackson Points Out, Seemingly Narrow Death-Penalty Case Would Have “Major Implications” for Standing Jurisprudence if Court Adopted Texas’s Argument

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Gutierrez v....
Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates

In United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is considering whether the qui tam provision of the False Claims Act violates the Appointments...
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Gutierrez v. Saenz

In Gutierrez v. Saenz, the Supreme Court is considering whether a federal court, as part of its analysis of a Section 1983 plaintiff’s standing to pursue a procedural due process claim against state officials, must...