Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Adrian Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 23-1253, 23-1283 · judgment April 25, 2025
Before the decision, about 1.8× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a Second Circuit decision below, and a petition filed soon after the judgment below.
Question presented
Under Sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, a party may apply to confirm or vacate an arbitration award. But federal courts have limited jurisdiction over Section 9 and 10 applications. In Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1, 4, 9-11 (2022), this Court held that a federal court may exercise jurisdiction only if the application establishes diversity or federal-question jurisdiction on its face. A federal court may not exercise jurisdiction merely on the basis that the underlying dispute, save for the arbitration agreement, would have been justiciable in federal court. See id. But what happens when a court initially exercises jurisdiction over the underlying dispute, stays the case pending arbitration, and is later faced with an application to confirm or vacate an arbitration award in the same case? The courts of appeals have sharply divided on the appropriate jurisdictional analysis. Several courts of appeals, including the Second Circuit below, have held that the initial exercise of jurisdiction creates a "jurisdictional anchor" that confers jurisdiction over a subsequent Section 9 or 10 application to confirm or vacate, even if jurisdiction would otherwise be absent. By contrast, the Fourth Circuit has held that a court must establish an independent basis for jurisdiction over a Section 9 or 10 application to confirm or vacate. The question presented is: Whether a federal court that initially exercises jurisdiction and stays a case pending arbitration maintains jurisdiction over a post-arbitration Section 9 or 10 application where jurisdiction would otherwise be lacking.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Adam G. Unikowsky
Jenner & Block LLP
For respondent
Anne Margaret Voigts
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 3 conferences
Amicus briefs
1 merits
(1 respondent)
Argument & decision
Argued March 30, 2026 — Adam G. Unikowsky · Daniel L. Geyser. Audio and transcript
Decided May 14, 2026. Opinion by Sotomayor.
Proceedings
- Jun 15 2026Judgment Issued.
- May 14 2026Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
- Mar 30 2026Argued. For petitioner: Adam G. Unikowsky, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Daniel L. Geyser, Dallas, Tex.
- Mar 19 2026Reply of petitioner Adrian Jules filed. (Distributed)
- Feb 25 2026CIRCULATED
- Feb 24 2026Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed. (Distributed)
- Feb 17 2026Brief of respondents Andre Balazs Properties, et al. filed.
- Feb 12 2026Record received electronically from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and available with the Clerk.
- Feb 11 2026Sealed material received electronically from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and available with the Clerk. The remainder of the record is electronic and is available on PACER.
- Feb 05 2026Record requested from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- Jan 30 2026SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, March 30, 2026.
- Jan 16 2026Brief of petitioner Adrian Jules filed.
- Jan 12 2026Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.
- Dec 22 2025Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Adrian Jules.
- Dec 05 2025Petition GRANTED.
- Dec 01 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/5/2025.
- Nov 05 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/21/2025.
- Oct 31 2025Reply of petitioner Adrian Jules filed.
- Oct 22 2025Brief of respondents Andre Balazs Properties, et al. in opposition filed.
- Sep 16 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 22, 2025.
- Sep 15 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 22, 2025 to October 22, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Aug 21 2025Response Requested. (Due September 22, 2025)
- Aug 20 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
- Aug 15 2025Waiver of right of respondent Andre Balazs Properties, et al. to respond filed.
- Jul 22 2025Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 21, 2025)