Who can require arbitration
Jump Trading v. Kim
In brief
- Where it stands
- Petition Pending
Awaiting an order on the petition
- What it’s about
- Jump Trading asks the Court to review a Seventh Circuit ruling it says rejected arbitration with Taewoo Kim.
- What's at stake
- Jump asks who decides whether a nonsignatory—a person or company that did not sign the agreement—may enforce its arbitration clause; the Court has not agreed to review that question.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
It asks who decides if a non-signing party may enforce a clause assigning the issue to an arbitrator, and whether federal or state law allows enforcement based on a signatory’s joint-misconduct claim under the New York Convention.
Jump also asks whether federal or state law determines if a nonsignatory can enforce an arbitration agreement covered by the New York Convention when a signer alleges joint misconduct.
Question presented
1. Whether an arbitrator or a court must decide whether a nonsignatory may compel arbitration under an agreement that delegates “arbitrability” questions to an arbitrator? 2. Whether a uniform federal common law of equitable estoppel allows a nonsignatory defendant to enforce an arbitration agreement subject to the New York Convention when the signatory plaintiff alleges that the nonsignatory defendant engaged in concerted misconduct with a signatory?
What happens next
The Supreme Court's next step is to decide whether to hear the petition. No argument date or decision window is set.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.