Supreme Court

Subscribe to Supreme Court via RSS

In 23-3 Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski (05/23/2024) (supremecourt.gov) (May 23, 2024), the U.S. Supreme Court once again delved into the frequently litigated arena of arbitration agreements. Specifically, the Court considered whether the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) empowers courts or arbitrators to decide which contract controls when (1) parties have executed multiple contracts, and (2) at least one contract contains an arbitration agreement delegating the threshold issue of arbitrability to an arbitrator while another sends arbitrability disputes to the courts. Guided by “basic principles of contract” law, the Court unanimously held that courts—not arbitrators—must decide which contract governs the parties’ dispute.Continue Reading Supreme Court Rules That Judges – Not Arbitrators – Must Resolve Disputes Where Various Agreements May Govern a Particular Dispute and Those Agreements Conflict on the Forum for Deciding Arbitrability

On May 16, 2024, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that, when enforcing an arbitration clause subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), if any party requests a stay, the district court lacks discretion to dismiss the underlying lawsuit. The high court’s ruling reverses the decision of the Ninth Circuit upholding dismissal, and resolves a long-simmering circuit split. Notwithstanding the FAA’s language appearing to mandate a stay, in which several circuits held that district courts have discretion to dismiss cases (without prejudice) pending arbitration. Continue Reading Supreme Court Holds that District Courts Must Stay – Not Dismiss – Actions Brought by Parties Subject to Binding Arbitration Agreements

On April 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court in the class action case of Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, No. 19-511, resolved a circuit court split on the meaning of automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) by unanimously reversing the Ninth Circuit’s broad definition and narrowly interpreting ATDS.  Bringing much needed clarity the Federal Communications Commission has not been able to provide to date, the Supreme Court held that to qualify as ATDS “a device must have the capacity to store a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator, or to produce a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator.”  This ruling significantly narrows liability, including class action liability, under the TCPA.
Continue Reading The U.S. Supreme Court Limits TCPA Liability By Narrowly Interpreting ATDS

On July 29, 2020, the Sixth Circuit joined the Second and the Ninth Circuits in expansively defining Automatic Telephone Dialing System (“ATDS”) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”).  In Allan v. Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency, No. 19-2043 (6th Cir. July 29, 2020), the Sixth Circuit held that “devices that dial from a stored list of numbers”—i.e. “predictive dialers”—qualify as an ATDS under the TCPA.  The Third, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits have applied a more stringent definition, requiring that an ATDS have the capacity to generate random or sequential telephone numbers and to dial them.  Now the Circuit Courts are split on this issue 3-3.  The U.S. Supreme Court recently accepted review of the definition of ATDS and will presumably resolve this split in its next terms, likely by the spring of 2021.
Continue Reading The Sixth Circuit Broadly Defines ATDS, Widening The Split Among Circuits Before The Supreme Court Rules Next Year