On June 23, 2023, in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, the US Supreme Court held that a district court must stay its proceedings pending an interlocutory appeal on the issue of arbitrability. The Court overturned the Ninth Circuit, which had taken a minority position on the issue. ( (U.S. June 23, 2023).)

Abraham Bielski filed a putative class action on behalf of all Coinbase users alleging that Coinbase, a cryptocurrency exchange platform, fraudulently took money from users' accounts and then failed to replace it. Coinbase filed a motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause in its user agreement. The US District Court for the Northern District of California denied the motion. Coinbase filed an interlocutory appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 16(a), which allows interlocutory appeals of orders denying arbitration. Coinbase also moved the district court to stay proceedings pending the appeal. Both the district court and the Ninth Circuit declined to stay the district court's proceedings. Following its precedent, the Ninth Circuit held that district courts were not required to stay proceedings pending appeals on the issue of arbitrability (see Britton v. Co-op Banking Group, 916 F.2d 1405, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990)). The Ninth Circuit's refusal to issue a stay diverged from the approach of other circuits that had considered the issue (for example, Bradford-Scott Data Corp. v. Physician Computer Network, Inc., 128 F.3d 504, 506 (7th Cir. 1997)).

The US Supreme Court resolved the circuit split by overturning the Ninth Circuit and holding that a notice of appeal automatically stays proceedings in the district court. The Court reached its decision by reviewing Section 16(a) of the FAA, which allows interlocutory appeals of a district court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration. The Court noted that Section 16(a) is mute on the issue of whether district court proceedings must be stayed pending the appeal, but noted that the principle articulated in Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co. resolved the issue (459 U.S. 56 (1982)). Under Griggs, an appeal automatically divests the district court of jurisdiction over the issues involved in the appeal. The Court held that because an interlocutory appeal on the issue of arbitrability concerns the fundamental issue of whether the case should proceed in court, the district court must stay its proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal.