Thole v. U. S. Bank N. A.
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Thole v. U. S. Bank N. A. and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Thole v. U. S. Bank N. A..
The Supreme Court addressed whether the New York Convention conflicts with domestic equitable estoppel doctrines that allow nonsignatories to enforce arbitration agreements. The Court found that the Convention does not prohibit the application of such domestic doctrines. The case was reversed and remanded for further consideration on whether GE Energy can enforce the arbitration clauses under these principles.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Thole v. U. S. Bank N. A..
The Court held that the New York Convention does not conflict with domestic equitable estoppel doctrines permitting nonsignatories to enforce arbitration agreements.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Thole v. U. S. Bank N. A.. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Preemption is relevant to Thole v. U. S. Bank N. A.
The case involves the interaction between domestic equitable estoppel doctrines and the New York Convention, assessing whether domestic law can apply without conflicting with the Convention.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The New York Convention does not conflict with domestic equitable estoppel doctrines that permit the enforcement of arbitration agreements by nonsignatories.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Thole v. U. S. Bank N. A.
The Court's decision involves interpreting the New York Convention and its application, which is a form of judicial review of international treaty obligations.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The application of familiar tools of treaty interpretation establishes that the state-law equitable estoppel doctrines permitted under Chapter 1 do not 'conflict with ... the Convention.'
-
Why State–Federal Power is relevant to Thole v. U. S. Bank N. A.
The case examines the role of state law doctrines in the context of federal arbitration law and international treaty obligations.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The 'traditional principles' of state law that apply under Chapter 1 include doctrines, like equitable estoppel, authorizing contract enforcement by a nonsignatory.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Thole v. U. S. Bank N. A. that support the summary and concepts above.
The New York Convention does not conflict with domestic equitable estoppel doctrines that permit the enforcement of arbitration agreements by nonsignatories.
The text of the New York Convention does not address whether nonsignatories may enforce arbitration agreements under domestic doctrines such as equitable estoppel.
The Convention is simply silent on the issue of nonsignatory enforcement.
