Forum
U.S. Supreme Court
Case Status
Pending
Docket Number
Term
Cert. Pending
Lower Court Opinion
Questions Presented
1. Whether the Federal Arbitration Act, as interpreted in Viking River, Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 587 U.S. 176 (2019), and Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985), permits courts to refuse to sever and compel arbitration of individualized and divisible components of a claim merely because they have been pleaded as a single cause of action with a nonarbitrable request such as for a public injunction, and the arbitration agreement expressly provides that a “claim for relief” that cannot be arbitrated individually is severable and remains in court.
2. Whether, in conflict with six other courts of appeals, the Ninth Circuit correctly allowed a plaintiff to seek injunctive relief when the plaintiff has alleged no risk of personally incurring the injury in the future and thus lacks Article III standing—here, because the plaintiffs do not allege that they will incur the challenged fee again and because a permanent injunction against the same party in favor of and enforceable by a state attorney general on behalf of the public already prohibits the same conduct to the extent it is unlawful.
Case Updates
U.S. Chamber files coalition amicus brief urging Supreme Court to grant cert and hold that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts California’s McGill rule, which purports to invalidate arbitration agreements that waive the right to seek injunctive relief on behalf of the general public
July 15, 2024
U.S. Chamber Coalition Amicus Brief
Peter B. Rutledge served as outside counsel.