Plain-English summary
Court dismisses Henry Schein case about whether carve-outs undo delegation to arbitrators
The Supreme Court dismissed the case as improvidently granted, leaving in place lower-court rulings. The question was whether an arbitration agreement’s carve-out for certain claims prevents a broad clause that delegates arbitrability questions to an arbitrator from taking effect.
Why this matters
The case concerned who decides whether a dispute must be arbitrated — a court or an arbitrator. That issue affects the enforceability of arbitration agreements and who gets the first say on whether claims proceed in court or in arbitration. Because the Court dismissed the case, uncertainty on this precise legal question remains.
Who may feel it
- Businesses that use arbitration agreements with delegation clauses
- Employees and consumers who sign arbitration agreements
- Trial and appellate courts handling disputes about arbitrability
- Arbitration providers and attorneys who counsel on arbitration clauses
Key questions
- Does an express carve-out in an arbitration agreement for certain claims prevent an otherwise clear and unmistakable delegation of arbitrability questions to an arbitrator?
- Who decides whether a dispute is for the arbitrator or the court when an arbitration agreement contains both a broad delegation clause and a separate carve-out for some claims?