Plain-English summary
Court dismisses review of whether carve-outs defeat delegation of arbitrability
The Court was asked whether an arbitration clause that delegates questions about arbitrability to an arbitrator can be negated by a separate clause carving some claims out of arbitration. The Court dismissed the case as improvidently granted and did not decide the question.
Why this matters
The question goes to who gets to decide whether a dispute belongs in arbitration — a court or an arbitrator. A Supreme Court decision could have set a clear national rule about whether carve-outs to arbitration agreements can undo delegation clauses. Because the Court dismissed the case, there is still uncertainty and varying treatment in lower courts, which affects how companies write arbitration contracts and how courts handle challenges to arbitrability.
Who may feel it
- Businesses that use arbitration clauses in contracts
- Consumers and employees bound by arbitration agreements
- Litigants and lawyers challenging whether disputes must go to arbitration
- Lower courts resolving arbitrability disputes
Key questions
- Does an explicit carve-out of certain claims from arbitration negate an otherwise clear and unmistakable delegation of arbitrability to an arbitrator?