appellate jurisdiction

Issues

Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") allows parties who have agreed to arbitrate to move for a stay of trial proceedings until they have had a chance to attempt arbitration. In addition, Section 16 of the FAA allows an immediate appeal of judgments denying stay under such circumstances. At issue in this case is whether these sections of the FAA extend to non-signing parties affected by an arbitration agreement. Petitioner Arthur Andersen advised Respondent Wayne Carlisle on a business transaction. As a result of this transaction, Carlisle eventually signed a contract, to which Andersen was a not party, that contained an arbitration agreement. After a dispute developed, Andersen sought a stay in the litigation proceedings in order to arbitrate with Carlisle, despite the fact that Andersen had not signed the arbitration agreement. After Andersen appealed the initial denial of its request for a stay, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear Andersen's appeal because Sections 3 and 16 of the FAA only apply to signatories of arbitration agreements. The Supreme Court's decision in this case may clarify the scope of the FAA's application to non-signatories, including the availability of appellate review of denials of stays.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

In 2016, President Obama appointed four active-duty military officers already serving on the Army or Air Force Courts of Criminal Appeals (CCAs) to serve as judges on the United States Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR). This case consolidates petitions from eight servicemembers whose appeals were each ruled on in a CCA proceeding by one of the judges also appointed to the CMCR. Dalmazzi and her fellow petitioners, individuals whose sentences were affirmed by one of these judges, challenge the judges’ dual appointments as violations of 10 U.S.C. § 973(b)(2), which bars military officers from holding civil offices requiring appointment by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. Dalmazzi also argues that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1259(3). The United States counters that the CMRC judgeship is not a civil office and appointments there do not require advice and consent of the Senate. Additionally, the United States argues that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction in some of the consolidated cases. This case creates potential implications for the scope of the Appointments Clause and the Executive Branch’s power to select judges.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Court will decide when a party may take an immediate appeal in a single district consolidated case under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the statute addressing appellate jurisdiction of all final decisions made by the district courts of the United States. Elsa Hall argues that § 1291 allows an appeal from a final judgment in a consolidated case even if the judgment does not resolve all claims. On the other hand, Samuel Hall argues that only a judgment resolving all consolidated claims may be appealed under § 1291. This issue arises in every consolidated case in which a district court enters judgment that leaves some claims in the consolidated case unresolved. Accordingly, the case will impact how plaintiffs bring claims and the appeals process in federal courts.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The issue in this case involves whether Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(C) is a jurisdictional rule or a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule. Hamer argues that the Rule is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule because it has no statutory basis, while Neighborhood Housing Services argues that the Rule is a jurisdictional rule because it prescribes the types of cases over which a court has adjudicatory authority and has a statutory basis. The case is significant from a legal perspective because it will determine whether a violation of Rule 4(a)(5)(C) strips a court of appeals of its jurisdiction to hear a case on the merits, or whether the court may still consider the case on the merits based on equitable considerations or if a party waived or forfeited its right to seek dismissal under the Rule. From a policy perspective, this case is significant because its outcome will affect the judicial system’s interest in finality and because a decision affirming the Seventh Circuit would caution against relying on the legal accuracy of orders from district court judges regarding appeals. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

After being assaulted while serving time in a federal prison, Michelle Ortiz sued two prison guards for constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on a defense of qualified immunity, and the case went to trial. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Ortiz, but the Sixth Circuit reversed on the basis of qualified immunity. Ortiz argues that the Sixth Circuit did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal based on qualified immunity because the issue, originally raised on summary judgment, was not preserved for appeal after final judgment was entered at trial. Jordan argues that by filing a motion for summary judgment, the issue was preserved. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will give guidance to litigants on how to preserve for appeal an issue that was the subject of a denied summary judgment motion.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources