The Federal Arbitration Act gives federal courts authority to compel arbitration, confirm an award, and vacate one. But federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and in Badgerow v. Walters the Supreme Court (Kagan author) held that confirming/vacating motions need their own jurisdictional basis; the FAA itself is not a grant of jurisdiction. Okay. But what if a court compels arbitration (section 3), for which it has jx, then stays the case pending arbitration—does jurisdiction carry forward to support a subsequent motion to confirm (section 9)? Admittedly, this is a case deep in the weeds.
Jules, a hotel employee, filed federal employment-discrimination claims against Balazs Properties. The district court compelled arbitration and stayed the case. Jules lost in arbitration, and Balazs returned to the same district court to confirm the award. The Second Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court's original stay created a jurisdictional foundation that carried forward. Other circuits went the other way on similar questions. The Court appeared split during argument. Kagan notably seem skeptical of jurisdiction.
The model predicts a 5-4 vote to reverse—but there is substantial uncertainty. This is about a 50-50 case. Kagan is predicted to vote to reverse.
vote predictions
