Badgerow v. Walters, No. 20-1143 (2021-Nov-02)
Whether federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an arbitration award under Sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act when the only basis for jurisdiction is that the underlying dispute involved a federal question.
QUESTION PRESENTED:
This case presents a clear and intractable conflict regarding an important jurisdictional question under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1-16. As this Court has repeatedly confirmed, the FAA does not itself confer federalquestion jurisdiction; federal courts must have an independent jurisdictional basis to entertain matters under the Act. In Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009), this Court held that a federal court, in reviewing a petition to compel arbitration under Section 4 of the Act, may "look through" the petition to decide whether the parties' underlying dispute gives rise to federal-question jurisdiction. In so holding, the Court focused on the particular language of Section 4, which is not repeated elsewhere in the Act.
After Vaden, the circuits have squarely divided over whether the same "lookthrough" approach also applies to motions to confirm or vacate an arbitration award under Sections 9 and 10. In Quezada v. Bechtel OG & C Constr. Servs., Inc., 946 F.3d 837 (5th Cir. 2020), the Fifth Circuit acknowledged the 3-2 "circuit split," and a divided panel held that the "look-through" approach applies under Sections 9 and 10. In the proceedings below, the Fifth Circuit declared itself "bound" by that earlier decision, and applied the "look-through" approach to establish jurisdiction. That holding was outcomedeterminative, and this case is a perfect vehicle for resolving the widespread disagreement over this important threshold question.
The question presented is: Whether federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an arbitration award under Sections 9 and 10 of the FAA where the only basis for jurisdiction is that the underlying dispute involved a federal question.
DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Feb 12 2021 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 24, 2021)
Mar 24 2021 | Brief of respondents Greg Walters, et al. in opposition filed.
Apr 02 2021 | Motion of petitioner to delay distribution of the petition for a writ of certiorari under Rule 15.5 from April 7, 2021 to April 14, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
Apr 05 2021 | Motion to delay distribution of the petition for a writ certiorari until April 14, 2021 granted.
Apr 14 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/30/2021.
Apr 16 2021 | Reply of petitioner Denise A. Badgerow filed. (Distributed)
May 10 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/13/2021.
May 17 2021 | Petition GRANTED.
May 28 2021 | Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.
Jun 04 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 22, 2021. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 10, 2021.
Jun 17 2021 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Denise A. Badgerow.
Jun 28 2021 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.
Jul 22 2021 | Brief of petitioner Denise A. Badgerow filed.
Aug 16 2021 | ARGUMENT SET FOR Tuesday, November 2, 2021.
Sep 01 2021 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit.
Sep 01 2021 | The record from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit is electronic and availble on Pacer.
Sep 10 2021 | Brief of respondents Greg Walters, et al. filed.
Sep 17 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed. (Distributed)
Sep 17 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association filed.(Distributed)
Sep 17 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Arbitration Scholar Imre Stephen Szalai filed. (Distributed)
Sep 21 2021 | CIRCULATED
Oct 12 2021 | Reply of petitioner Denise A. Badgerow filed. (Distributed)
Nov 02 2021 | Argued. For petitioner: Daniel L. Geyser, Dallas, Tex. For respondents: Lisa S. Blatt, Washington, D. C.
★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★
This case presents a clear and intractable conflict regarding an important jurisdictional question under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1-16. As this Court has repeatedly confirmed, the FAA does not itself confer federalquestion jurisdiction; federal courts must have an independent jurisdictional basis to entertain matters under the Act. In Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009), this Court held that a federal court, in reviewing a petition to compel arbitration under Section 4 of the Act, may "look through" the petition to decide whether the parties' underlying dispute gives rise to federal-question jurisdiction. In so holding, the Court focused on the particular language of Section 4, which is not repeated elsewhere in the Act.
After Vaden, the circuits have squarely divided over whether the same "lookthrough" approach also applies to motions to confirm or vacate an arbitration award under Sections 9 and 10. In Quezada v. Bechtel OG & C Constr. Servs., Inc., 946 F.3d 837 (5th Cir. 2020), the Fifth Circuit acknowledged the 3-2 "circuit split," and a divided panel held that the "look-through" approach applies under Sections 9 and 10. In the proceedings below, the Fifth Circuit declared itself "bound" by that earlier decision, and applied the "look-through" approach to establish jurisdiction. That holding was outcomedeterminative, and this case is a perfect vehicle for resolving the widespread disagreement over this important threshold question.
The question presented is: Whether federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an arbitration award under Sections 9 and 10 of the FAA where the only basis for jurisdiction is that the underlying dispute involved a federal question.
DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Feb 12 2021 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 24, 2021)
Mar 24 2021 | Brief of respondents Greg Walters, et al. in opposition filed.
Apr 02 2021 | Motion of petitioner to delay distribution of the petition for a writ of certiorari under Rule 15.5 from April 7, 2021 to April 14, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
Apr 05 2021 | Motion to delay distribution of the petition for a writ certiorari until April 14, 2021 granted.
Apr 14 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/30/2021.
Apr 16 2021 | Reply of petitioner Denise A. Badgerow filed. (Distributed)
May 10 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/13/2021.
May 17 2021 | Petition GRANTED.
May 28 2021 | Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.
Jun 04 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 22, 2021. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 10, 2021.
Jun 17 2021 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Denise A. Badgerow.
Jun 28 2021 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.
Jul 22 2021 | Brief of petitioner Denise A. Badgerow filed.
Aug 16 2021 | ARGUMENT SET FOR Tuesday, November 2, 2021.
Sep 01 2021 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit.
Sep 01 2021 | The record from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit is electronic and availble on Pacer.
Sep 10 2021 | Brief of respondents Greg Walters, et al. filed.
Sep 17 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed. (Distributed)
Sep 17 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association filed.(Distributed)
Sep 17 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Arbitration Scholar Imre Stephen Szalai filed. (Distributed)
Sep 21 2021 | CIRCULATED
Oct 12 2021 | Reply of petitioner Denise A. Badgerow filed. (Distributed)
Nov 02 2021 | Argued. For petitioner: Daniel L. Geyser, Dallas, Tex. For respondents: Lisa S. Blatt, Washington, D. C.
