Through The Looking Glass: Courts Cannot "Look Through" Arbitration Motion To Establish Jurisdiction

In a nearly unanimous opinion, the United States Supreme Court recently held in Badgerow v. Walters that a district court cannot "look through" to the underlying controversy in order to support jurisdiction to decide a motion to confirm, amend, or alter an arbitration award issued under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). In so ruling, the Court explicitly declined to extend its holding in Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009). In Vaden, the Court found that in the context of deciding a motion to compel arbitration, the text of 9 USC § 4 of the FAA instructs federal courts to "look through" the motion to the underlying claims and controversy to ensure it has jurisdiction, even though the underlying matter is technically not before the Court. Utilizing this "look through" process, a district court has jurisdiction to rule on a motion to compel arbitration if the underlying dispute falls within its jurisdiction (e.g. raises a federal question or diversity