Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties · ¶34

Setting aside that “ `[i]t is not for this Court to employ untethered notions of what might be good public policy to [determine] our jurisdiction,' ” Badgerow, 596 U. S., at 16, Jules's policy arguments lack force on their own terms. For one thing, his concerns about protective anchor suits are conjectural. Even in courts that have long embraced Badger ow's rule for freestanding § 9 and § 10 motions but agree with the result the Court reaches today for pre-existing cases, Jules identifes no epidemic of useless filings clogging up federal courts.That may be because filing a precautionary federal anchor suit runs a serious risk of forfeiting the right to arbitrate. Cf. Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 596 U. S. 411, 413, 418–419 (2022). Or it may be because securing a post- arbitration federal forum is not all that valuable to parties who, on the front end, do not know whether they will emerge…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.