Coinbase v. Suski
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Coinbase v. Suski 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 Coinbase v. Suski.
The Supreme Court addressed a conflict between two contracts involving Coinbase and its users, one containing an arbitration clause and the other a forum selection clause. The Court determined that when parties have conflicting agreements regarding arbitrability, a court must decide which contract governs. The Ninth Circuit's decision to deny Coinbase's motion to compel arbitration was affirmed.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Coinbase v. Suski.
The Court held that when parties have agreed to conflicting contracts regarding arbitrability, a court must decide which contract governs.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Coinbase v. Suski. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Coinbase v. Suski
The Court's decision involves determining which contract governs the dispute, a function of judicial review.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)That question must be answered by a court.
-
Why Preemption is relevant to Coinbase v. Suski
The case involves determining whether federal arbitration law preempts state law regarding forum selection.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Federal Arbitration Act 'refects the fundamental principle that arbitration is a matter of contract.'
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Coinbase v. Suski that support the summary and concepts above.
Where parties have agreed to two contracts—one sending arbitrability disputes to arbitration, and the other either explicitly or implicitly sending arbitrability disputes to the courts—a court must decide which contract governs.
The Federal Arbitration Act 'refects the fundamental principle that arbitration is a matter of contract.'
The severability rule does not require that a party challenge only the arbitration or delegation provision.
