Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
FCA US, LLC, a Delaware Corporation v. Jeffrey Olson
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 24-6527 · judgment May 21, 2026
(petition-stage, structural)
About 4.5× the 4.1% base rate. The model weights this up for a Ninth Circuit decision below, a circuit split argued in the petition, and a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition).
Question presented
Arbitration agreements often require arbitration of “not only the merits of a particular dispute but also ‘gateway’ questions of ‘arbitrability.’” Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 586 U.S. 63, 67-68 (2019) (citation omitted). Such questions include whether the agreement “covers a particular controversy.” Id. at 68 (quotation marks omitted). When the agreement delegates gateway questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator, “a court possesses no power to decide” them. Id. That rule is easy to apply when signatories to an arbitration agreement disagree about whether it covers a claim: an arbitrator must resolve the arbitrability dispute. But a 5-4-1 circuit split has emerged over how the rule applies when a signatory and a nonsignatory disagree about whether an arbitration agreement covers a claim. Five circuits require courts to resolve such disputes; four send such disputes to arbitration; and one uses a unique approach based on whether “prima facie” evidence exists that the litigants agreed to arbitration. The question presented is: When an arbitration agreement delegates arbitrability disputes to an arbitrator, may courts nevertheless resolve a dispute over whether the agreement covers a signatory’s claim against a nonsignatory?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Brandon Lee Boxler
Klein Thomas Lee & Fresard
For respondent
—
Case
Conference history
—
Proceedings
- Aug 19 2026Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 21, 2026)