Our colleague Stuart Gerson of Epstein Becker Green has a new post on SCOTUS Today that will be of interest to our readers: Court Refuses to Take Another Look at Case Questioning Whether Judge or Arbitrator Should Decide Scope of Arbitration Agreement

The following is an excerpt:

The overall quiet at the Court on Monday was only lightly interrupted with its per curiam decision in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., dismissing the petition for certiorari to the Fifth Circuit as improvidently granted. I mention it because the dismissal leaves open the questions that remained when a unanimous Court held on January 8, 2019, in the first iteration of the Schein case, that “a court may not decide an arbitrability question that the parties have delegated to an arbitrator.”

The underlying case was an antitrust matter against Schein, a dental equipment distributor, that sought both monetary damages and injunctive relief. Schein sought to compel arbitration, and the parties’ arbitration agreement provided that “[a]ny dispute arising under or related to this Agreement (except for actions seeking injunctive relief ... shall be resolved by binding arbitration ... .” The core question was, “Did that provision apply to the case at hand, and had Archer agreed that the initial question of arbitrability itself was for the arbitrator or a court to decide?” The Fifth Circuit held that Schein's motion to compel arbitration was invalid, thus holding that the threshold question could be decided by a court. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, as noted above. However, while resolving the underlying legal issue, the Court did not provide any more guidance on what an arbitration agreement should look like other than that it should provide “clear and unmistakable evidence” of the parties' intent.

Click here to read the full post and more on SCOTUS Today.

Back to Commercial Litigation Update Blog

Search This Blog

Blog Editors


Related Services



Jump to Page


Sign up to receive an email notification when new Commercial Litigation Update posts are published:

Privacy Preference Center

When you visit any website, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalized web experience. Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.

Performance Cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.