Plain-English summary
Court dismisses case after agreeing to decide whether carve-outs negate arbitration delegation
The Court agreed to decide whether an arbitration clause’s carve-out for certain claims prevents a clear-and-unmistakable delegation of arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, but ultimately dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted and did not decide the issue. The lower-court judgment stands.
Why this matters
The case raised an important question about when arbitrators — not courts — decide whether a dispute is subject to arbitration. A clear rule would affect many business contracts that include both a delegation clause (giving arbitrators power to decide arbitrability) and carve-outs for particular claims. The Court’s dismissal leaves the lower-court approach in place for this dispute and leaves unresolved the broader circuit split about how those two contract provisions interact.
Who may feel it
- Businesses and individuals who sign contracts containing arbitration clauses and carve-outs
- Arbitration practitioners and counsel
- Federal and state courts dealing with arbitrability disputes
- Companies that rely on arbitration to resolve commercial disputes
Key questions
- When an arbitration agreement contains a clear and unmistakable delegation clause assigning arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, does a separate provision that exempts certain claims from arbitration nullify that delegation?