Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski (23-3)

argument 23-3

Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski

Supreme Court of the United States 42 min 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the Federal Arbitration Act’s requirement for enforcing arbitration agreements?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument next in case twenty three three Coinbase versus Susky. Ms. Ellsworth.

Unknown 0:06

Mr. President, President, and may it please the Court, the Federal Arbitration Act requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms. Respondents and Coinbase agreed to arbitrate any disputes about Coinbase services and to delegate to an arbitrator any threshold disputes about whether specific claims were subject to arbitration. Despite this delegation clause, the parties have spent nearly three years disputing this threshold issue. That's because instead of enforcing the delegation clause, the courts below came up with rationales to evade it and to instead answer the question of arbitrability for themselves. The Ninth Circuit did so by characterizing respondents' challenge as one of contract formation, asserting that contract formation can never be delegated and sidestepping the delegation clause.

Unknown 1:01

The issue, as the Court of Appeals saw it, was whether the parties formed a contract to arbitrate these claims. If that approach were correct, courts in every case could ignore delegation clauses by just characterizing an arbitrability dispute as a question of whether the parties formed a contract to arbitrate the claims at issue. Respondents do not defend that reasoning. They agree the contracts here were formed and that they were in effect. Their argument is that the scope of the otherwise applicable arbitration agreement was narrowed by a later contract to exclude their asserted claims. That question is one of arbitrability, and the parties agreed an arbitrator would decide it. Respondents blur three distinct legal questions in a case like this one.

Unknown 1:52

The first is the merits of the claims the respondents assert. The second is whether those The merits of those claims should be arbitrated. And the third, which is the only question that was before the courts below and is before this court. is who decides whether the merits should be arbitrated. This third question is antecedent to the other two. I welcome the court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 2:15

Uh isn't the problem the confusion uh that results from uh the difference between the official rules and the agreement?

Unknown 2:23

So Your Honor, uh at some level there is some confusion that the respondents have argued results from looking at these two together. But the only way there is confusion is if you conflate those different layers of questions, because the Uh the the delegation clause that's in the arbitration agreement answers directly the who decides.

Clarence Thomas 2:49

disagreement here. Doesn't it come from the uh uh the the rules?

Unknown 2:54

So the source of the agreement is

Clarence Thomas 2:56

this agreement.

Unknown 2:58

Certainly. The source of the disagreement is that there is a forum selection clause in the official rules that says something about controversies regarding the promotion. And the respondents have argued that by using that language, the second contract somehow carved out of the arbitration agreement the claims they want to assert here.

Clarence Thomas 3:20

Well couldn't this have been solved in drafting by simply uh either having express arbitration provision in the official rules or by referring back to and incorporating the uh user agreement?

Unknown 3:35

So Your Honor, I think those are certainly questions that could be uh and should be addressed by the arbitrator when this gets there. But but the threshold question is whether the confusion that your Honor is referencing has anything to do with the who decides issue. And there's nothing in the official rules language.

Clarence Thomas 3:53

Well I think it goes e a little deeper because you can also say is there actually an arbitration agreement that comes out of the uh the rules?

Unknown 4:02

So so Your Honor, I I um I don't think there is an arbitration agreement anywhere in the official rules. The respondents' argument is to try to take the official rules to create ambiguity about the or or confusion, as Your Honor said, about what claims are actually subject to arbitration. But that is a garden variety arbitrability question. It doesn't speak to the threshold gateway who decides question. So can I ask you?