⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Supreme Court of the United States hears oral argument in Jules versus Andre Balazs Properties. The case concerns a procedural puzzle under the Federal Arbitration Act: when a federal court has jurisdiction over a lawsuit, stays that lawsuit to send the parties to arbitration, and the arbitration then concludes, does that court still have jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the arbitration award? Adrian Jules worked at the Chateau Marmont hotel in Los Angeles and was fired in March 2020. He later sued in federal court in New York, alleging discrimination under federal law. The defendants moved to stay the case pending arbitration under Section 3 of the FAA, and the district court granted the stay. Jules arbitrated against the respondents, lost, and was sanctioned. When the parties returned to district court to confirm or vacate the award, Jules argued that under the Supreme Court's recent decision in Badgerow, the court lacked jurisdiction. The district court and the Second Circuit disagreed, holding that the court's initial jurisdiction created what lower courts call a "jurisdictional anchor." That ruling deepened a split among the circuits, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. The question presented is whether a federal court that initially exercises jurisdiction and stays a case pending arbitration maintains jurisdiction over a post-arbitration application to confirm or vacate where jurisdiction would otherwise be lacking.

Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties (No. 25-83) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued March 30, 2026.