[MR. DVORETZKY]23LOC[MR. DVORETZKY] Mr24NPMr .25SENT. Chief26NPChief Justice27NPJustice ,28,, and29CCand may30MDmay it31PPit please32VVplease the33DTthe Court34NPCourt :35:: If36INif this37DTthis case38NNcase involved39VVDinvolve a40DTa domestic41JJdomestic arbitration42NNarbitration agreement43NNagreement ,44,, GE45NPGE Energy46NPEnergy could47MDcould enforce48VVenforce it49PPit as50RBas long51RBlong as52INas it53PPit could54MDcould satisfy55VVsatisfy domestic56JJdomestic non-signatory57JJnon-signatory enforcement58NNenforcement doctrines59NNSdoctrine like60INlike equitable61JJequitable estoppel62NNestoppel .63SENT. The64DTthe question65NNquestion here66RBhere is67VBZbe whether68INwhether the69DTthe New70NPNew York71NPYork Convention72NPConvention prohibits73VVZprohibit that74IN/thatthat same75JJsame result76NNresult for77INfor international78JJinternational arbitration79NNarbitration agreements80NNSagreement .81SENT. It82PPit does83VVZdo not84RBnot .85SENT. The86DTthe Convention87NNconvention is88VBZbe simply89RBsimply silent90JJsilent about91INabout enforcement92NNenforcement by93INby non-signatories94NNSnon-signatories .95SENT. That96DTthat silence97NNsilence is98VBZbe consistent99JJconsistent with100INwith the101DTthe Convention102NNconvention 's103POS's design104NNdesign ,105,, which106WDTwhich sets107VVZset a108DTa floor109NNfloor ,110,, not111RBnot a112DTa ceiling113NNceiling ,114,, for115INfor enforcing116VVGenforce arbitration117NNarbitration agreements118NNSagreement and119CCand awards120NNSaward .121SENT. The122DTthe Convention123NPConvention says124VVZsay that125IN/thatthat states126NNSstate must127MDmust do128VVdo certain129JJcertain things130NNSthing to131TOto promote132VVpromote arbitration133NNarbitration .134SENT. It135PPit does136VVZdo n't137RBn't say138VVsay they139PPthey can140MDcan 't141RB't to142TOto do143VVdo more144JJRmore than145INthan the146DTthe Convention147NPConvention requires148VVZrequire .149SENT. Moreover150RBmoreover ,151,, Article152NPArticle II153NPII ,154,, the155DTthe principal156JJprincipal provision157NNprovision about158INabout arbitration159NNarbitration agreements160NNSagreement ,161,, is162VBZbe especially163RBespecially short164JJshort .165SENT. It166PPit is167VBZbe not168RBnot a169DTa comprehensive170JJcomprehensive scheme171NNscheme that172WDTthat displaces173VVZdisplace all174DTall sovereign175JJsovereign authority176NNauthority to177TOto enforce178VVenforce domestic179JJdomestic laws180NNSlaw about181INabout arbitration182NNarbitration agreements183NNSagreement .184SENT. All185DTall relevant186JJrelevant sources187NNSsource of188INof meaning189VVGmean understand190VVunderstand the191DTthe Convention192NNconvention this193DTthis same194JJsame way195NNway .196SENT. Other197JJother contracting198NNcontracting states199NNSstate are200VBPbe close201JJclose to202TOto unanimous203JJunanimous that204IN/thatthat the205DTthe Convention206NNconvention does207VVZdo not208RBnot preempt209VVpreempt domestic210JJdomestic law211NNlaw allowing212VVGallow non-signatory213JJnon-signatory enforcement214NNenforcement .215SENT. The216DTthe United217NPUnited States218NPSStates ,219,, the220DTthe Restatement221NNrestatement ,222,, UNCITRAL223NPUNCITRAL ,224,, and225CCand leading226VVGlead commentators227NNScommentator agree228VVPagree .229SENT. In230INin allowing231VVGallow doctrines232NNSdoctrine like233INlike equitable234JJequitable estoppel235NNestoppel serves236VVZserve the237DTthe Convention238NNconvention 's239POS's overriding240JJoverriding purpose241NNpurpose ,242,, to243TOto overcome244VVovercome widespread245JJwidespread resistance246NNresistance to247TOto arbitration248NNarbitration .249SENT. The250DTthe Eleventh251JJeleventh Circuit252NNcircuit nevertheless253RBnevertheless interpreted254VVDinterpret the255DTthe definition256NNdefinition of257INof "258``" agreement259NNagreement in260INin writing261NNwriting "262''" to263TOto preclude264VVpreclude non-signatory265JJnon-signatory enforcement266NNenforcement .267SENT. This268DTthis Court269NPCourt should270MDshould not271RBnot make272VVmake the273DTthe United274NPUnited States275NPSStates an276DTan outlier277NNoutlier by278INby adopting279VVGadopt that280DTthat position281NNposition .282SENT. Article283NPArticle II284NPII (285(( 2286CD2 )287)) just288RBjust specifies289VVZspecify the290DTthe kinds291NNSkind of292INof agreements293NNSagreement that294IN/thatthat states295NNSstate at296INat a297DTa minimum298NNminimum must299MDmust recognize300VVrecognize .301SENT. It302PPit does303VVZdo n't304RBn't limit305VVlimit who306WPwho can307MDcan enforce308VVenforce them309PPthem .310SENT. Respondents311NNSrespondent themselves312PPthemselves do313VVPdo n't314RBn't defend315VVdefend the316DTthe Eleventh317JJeleventh Circu318NPCircu it319PPit 's320VBZbe signature-based321JJsignature-based rule322NNrule .323SENT. They324PPthey concede325VVPconcede that326IN/thatthat all327DTall kinds328NNSkind of329INof non-signatory330JJnon-signatory enforcement331NNenforcement doctrines332NNSdoctrine ,333,, including334VVGinclude even335RBeven some336DTsome kinds337NNSkind of338INof equitable339JJequitable estoppel340NNestoppel ,341,, are342VBPbe okay343JJokay .344SENT. Just345RBjust not346RBnot the347DTthe particular348JJparticular type349NNtype of350INof equitable351JJequitable estoppel352NNestoppel here353RBhere .354SENT. That355DTthat incoherent356JJincoherent project357NNproject of358INof parsing359VVGparse some360DTsome non-signatory361JJnon-signatory enforcement362NNenforcement doctrines363NNSdoctrine from364INfrom others365NNSother has366VHZhave no367DTno basis368NNbasis in369INin any370DTany of371INof the372DTthe tools373NNStool of374INof treaty375NNtreaty interpretation376NNinterpretation .377SENT. [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]378LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] Mr379NPMr .380SENT. Dvoretzky381NPDvoretzky ,382,, if383INif ...384:... if385INif you386PPyou and387CCand I388PPI have389VHPhave an390DTan agreement391NNagreement to392TOto arbitrate393VVarbitrate ,394,, and395CCand even396RBeven if397INif you398PPyou tell399VVPtell me400PPme ,401,, you402PPyou know403VVPknow ,404,, I405PPI ...406:... I407PPI might408MDmight have409VHhave Mr410NNMr .411SENT. Hacker412NNhacker do413VVPdo most414JJSmost of415INof the416DTthe work417NNwork under418INunder it419PPit ,420,, and421CCand I422PPI just423RBjust want424VVPwant to425TOto make426VVmake that427IN/thatthat clear428JJclear to429TOto you430PPyou ,431,, and432CCand then433RBthen you434PPyou do435VVPdo hire436VVhire Mr437NPMr .438SENT. Hacker439NNhacker to440TOto do441VVdo all442PDTall the443DTthe work444NNwork in445INin it446PPit .447SENT. He448PPhe can449MDcan 't450RB't be451VBbe compelled452VVNcompel to453TOto arbitrate454VVarbitrate with455INwith me456PPme if457INif I458PPI do459VVPdo n't460RBn't like461VVlike the462DTthe quality463NNquality of464INof his465PP$his work466NNwork ,467,, right468RBright ?469SENT? He470PPhe 's471VBZbe not472RBnot a473DTa signatory474NNsignatory to475TOto our476PP$our arbitration477NNarbitration agreement478NNagreement .479SENT. Maybe480RBmaybe he481PPhe does482VVZdo n't483RBn't even484RBeven know485VVknow about486INabout it487PPit .488SENT. But489CCbut the490DTthe fact491NNfact that492IN/thatthat you493PPyou and494CCand I495PPI think496VVPthink ...497:... no498UHno ,499,, you500PPyou 're501VBPbe going502VVGgo to503TOto get504VVget him505PPhim to506TOto do507VVdo it508PPit ,509,, and510CCand we511PPwe think512VVPthink we513PPwe 're514VBPbe going515VVGgo to516TOto arbitrate517VVarbitrate all518PDTall our519PP$our disputes520NNSdispute ,521,, he522PPhe 's523VBZbe not524RBnot bound525VVNbind to526TOto arbitrate527VVarbitrate ?528SENT? [MR. DVORETZKY]529LOC[MR. DVORETZKY] I530PPI think531VVPthink whether532INwhether he533PPhe could534MDcould arbitrate535VVarbitrate would536MDwould depend537VVdepend on538INon the539DTthe domestic540JJdomestic doctrine541NNdoctrine about542INabout non-signatory543JJnon-signatory enforcement544NNenforcement .545SENT. And546CCand on547INon the548DTthe facts549NNSfact that550IN/thatthat you551PPyou 've552VHPhave posited553VVNposit ,554,, I555PPI think556VVPthink on557INon an558DTan equitable559JJequitable estoppel560NNestoppel theory561NNtheory ,562,, if563INif you564PPyou were565VBDbe to566TOto sue567VVsue him568PPhim ,569,, rather570RBrather than571INthan me572PPme ,573,, for574INfor ...575:... for576INfor claims577NNSclaim that578WDTthat are579VBPbe intertwined580VVNintertwine with581INwith our582PP$our contract583NNcontract ,584,, the585DTthe contract586NNcontract that587IN/thatthat you588PPyou and589CCand I590PPI have591VHPhave ,592,, under593INunder an594DTan equitable595JJequitable estoppel596NNestoppel theory597NNtheory ,598,, he599PPhe could600MDcould be601VBbe compelled602VVNcompel to603TOto arbitrate604VVarbitrate .605SENT. That606DTthat was607VBDbe the608DTthe same609JJsame sort610NNsort of611INof factor612NNfactor ...613:... [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]614LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] I615PPI thought616VVDthink it617PPit was618VBDbe one619CDone of620INof the621DTthe central622JJcentral propositions623NNSproposition of624INof our625PP$our arbitration626NNarbitration precedents627NNSprecedent that628IN/thatthat arbitration629NNarbitration is630VBZbe based631VVNbase on632INon agreement633NNagreement .634SENT. And635CCand here636RBhere somebody637NNsomebody who638WPwho did639VVDdo ...640:... never641RBnever agreed642VVNagree to643TOto arbitration644NNarbitration is645VBZbe being646VBGbe forced647VVNforce into648INinto arbitration649NNarbitration ,650,, even651RBeven though652INthough he653PPhe has654VHZhave a655DTa clear656JJclear right657NNright to658TOto take659VVtake his660PP$his dispute661NNdispute to662TOto court663NNcourt .664SENT. [MR. DVORETZKY]665LOC[MR. DVORETZKY] Arbitration666NNarbitration is667VBZbe ,668,, of669INof course670NNcourse ,671,, a672DTa matter673NNmatter of674INof consent675NNconsent .676SENT. But677CCbut as678RBas long679RBlong as680INas you681PPyou and682CCand I683PPI have684VHPhave a685DTa valid686JJvalid arbitration687NNarbitration agreement688NNagreement ,689,, that690WDTthat ...691:... that692WDTthat 's693VBZbe the694DTthe key695NNkey ,696,, consent697NNconsent .698SENT. Then699RBthen the700DTthe scope701NNscope of702INof that703DTthat arbitration704NNarbitration agreement705NNagreement is706VBZbe another707DTanother question708NNquestion ,709,, and710CCand that711WDTthat 's712VBZbe determined713VVNdetermine in714INin the715DTthe Chapter716NPChapter 1717CD1 context718NNcontext by719INby domestic720JJdomestic law721NNlaw .722SENT. That723DTthat was724VBDbe the725DTthe situation726NNsituation the727DTthe Court728NNcourt faced729VVNface in730INin Arthur731NPArthur Andersen732NPAndersen ,733,, and734CCand the735DTthe Court736NPCourt saw737VVDsee no738DTno inconsistency739NNinconsistency between740INbetween Chapter741NPChapter 1742CD1 and743CCand an744DTan equitable745JJequitable estoppel746NNestoppel theory747NNtheory .748SENT. There749EXthere was750VBDbe no751DTno consent752NNconsent problem753NNproblem with754INwith what755WPwhat ...756:... with757INwith remanding758VVGremand for759INfor the760DTthe lower761JJRlow court762NNcourt in763INin Arthur764NPArthur Andersen765NPAndersen to766TOto consider767VVconsider whether768INwhether the769DTthe requirements770NNSrequirement of771INof equitable772JJequitable estoppel773NNestoppel were774VBDbe satisfied775VVNsatisfy to776TOto allow777VVallow a778DTa non-signatory779NNnon-signatory to780TOto compel781VVcompel arbitration782NNarbitration in783INin a784DTa domestic785JJdomestic context786NNcontext .787SENT. [JUSTICE ALITO]788LOC[JUSTICE ALITO] Well789UHWell ,790,, what791WPwhat if792INif the793DTthe ...794:... [MR. DVORETZKY]795LOC[MR. DVORETZKY] The796DTthe question797NNquestion ...798:... [JUSTICE ALITO]799LOC[JUSTICE ALITO] What800WPWhat if801INif the802DTthe law803NNlaw of804INof the805DTthe jurisdiction806NNjurisdiction whose807WP$whose law808NNlaw would809MDwould be810VBbe chosen811VVNchoose permits812VVZpermit arbitration813NNarbitration without814INwithout any815DTany consent816NNconsent whatsoever817RBwhatsoever ?818SENT? I819PPI guess820VVPguess you821PPyou 'd822MDwould have823VHhave to824TOto say825VVsay that826IN/thatthat that827WDTthat 's828VBZbe ...829:... that830WDTthat 's831VBZbe okay832JJokay ,833,, right834RBright ?835SENT? [MR. DVORETZKY]836LOC[MR. DVORETZKY] That837DTthat ...838:... the839DTthe Convention840NNconvention does841VVZdo n't842RBn't prevent843VVprevent that844DTthat .845SENT. That846DTthat 's847VBZbe simply848RBsimply not849RBnot the850DTthe problem851NNproblem that852IN/thatthat the853DTthe Convention854NNconvention was855VBDbe trying856VVGtry on857INon solve858VVsolve .859SENT. The860DTthe purpose861NNpurpose of862INof the863DTthe Convention864NNconvention was865VBDbe to866TOto address867VVaddress the868DTthe problem869NNproblem of870INof under-enforcement871NNunder-enforcement of872INof arbitration873NNarbitration agreements874NNSagreement .875SENT. If876INif there877EXthere is878VBZbe some879DTsome country880NNcountry out881INout there882RBthere or883CCor some884DTsome state885NNstate that886WDTthat is887VBZbe compelling888JJcompelling arbitration889NNarbitration in890INin the891DTthe way892NNway that893IN/thatthat you894PPyou 're895VBPbe describing896VVGdescribe ,897,, the898DTthe Convention899NNconvention does900VVZdo n't901RBn't directly902RBdirectly deal903VVdeal with904INwith that905IN/thatthat ,906,, except907INexcept perhaps908RBperhaps in909INin Article910NPArticle V911NNV ,912,, which913WDTwhich would914MDwould provide915VVprovide a916DTa public917JJpublic policy918NNpolicy backstop919NNbackstop for920INfor the921DTthe country922NNcountry in923INin which924WDTwhich enforcement925NNenforcement of926INof an927DTan award928NNaward is929VBZbe sought930VVNseek to931TOto say932VVsay we933PPwe 're934VBPbe not935RBnot enforcing936VVGenforce that937DTthat award938NNaward because939INbecause it940PPit contravenes941VVZcontravene our942PP$our public943JJpublic policy944NNpolicy .945SENT. [JUSTICE KAGAN]946LOC[JUSTICE KAGAN] So947INso you948PPyou 're949VBPbe saying950VVGsay that951IN/thatthat when952WRBwhen the953DTthe United954NPUnited States955NPSStates entered956VVDenter into957INinto the958DTthe Convention959NNconvention and960CCand when961WRBwhen it962PPit then963RBthen implemented964VVDimplement the965DTthe Convention966NNconvention through967INthrough the968DTthe FAA969NPFAA ,970,, Congress971NPCongress did972VVDdo n't973RBn't understand974VVunderstand arbitration975NNarbitration to976TOto mean977VVmean voluntary978JJvoluntary arbitration979NNarbitration ?980SENT? The981DTthe ,982,, you983PPyou know984VVPknow ...985:... my986PP$my ...987:... my988PP$my question989NNquestion I990PPI guess991VVPguess is992VBZbe the993DTthe same994JJsame as995INas Justice996NPJustice Alito's997NPAlito's .998SENT. It999PPit seems1000VVZseem odd1001JJodd that1002IN/thatthat Congress1003NPCongress would1004MDwould have1005VHhave passed1006VVNpass the1007DTthe implementing1008VVGimplement legislation1009NNlegislation on1010INon the1011DTthe view1012NNview that1013IN/thatthat another1014DTanother contracting1015NNcontracting state1016NNstate could1017MDcould compel1018VVcompel arbitration1019NNarbitration without1020INwithout any1021DTany consent1022NNconsent whatsoever1023RBwhatsoever .1024SENT. [MR. DVORETZKY]1025LOC[MR. DVORETZKY] Justice1026NPJustice Kagan1027NPKagan ,1028,, I1029PPI think1030VVPthink this1031DTthis goes1032VVZgo to1033TOto the1034DTthe core1035JJcore question1036NNquestion of1037INof what1038WPwhat the1039DTthe Convention1040NNconvention is1041VBZbe trying1042VVGtry to1043TOto do1044VVdo .1045SENT. The1046DTthe Convention1047NPConvention is1048VBZbe trying1049VVGtry to1050TOto set1051VVset forth1052RBforth minimum1053JJminimum standards1054NNSstandard by1055INby which1056WDTwhich other1057JJother countries1058NNScountry will1059MDwill recognize1060VVrecognize and1061CCand enforce1062VVenforce arbitration1063NNarbitration agreements1064NNSagreement .1065SENT. And1066CCand to1067TOto be1068VBbe sure1069JJsure ,1070,, the1071DTthe Convention1072NNconvention does1073VVZdo not1074RBnot require1075VVrequire any1076DTany country1077NNcountry to1078TOto recognize1079VVrecognize forced1080VVNforce arbitration1081NNarbitration ,1082,, so1083RBso to1084TOto speak1085VVspeak .1086SENT. The1087DTthe ...1088:... the1089DTthe premise1090NNpremise of1091INof the1092DTthe Convention1093NNconvention is1094VBZbe that1095IN/thatthat the1096DTthe floor1097NNfloor ,1098,, the1099DTthe minimum1100NNminimum ,1101,, that1102WDTthat other1103JJother countries1104NNScountry are1105VBPbe agreeing1106VVGagree to1107TOto do1108VVdo ,1109,, is1110VBZbe to1111TOto recognize1112VVrecognize valid1113JJvalid arbitration1114NNarbitration agreements1115NNSagreement .1116SENT. By1117INby the1118DTthe same1119JJsame token1120NNtoken ,1121,, it1122PPit does1123VVZdo n't1124RBn't preempt1125VVpreempt all1126DTall domestic1127JJdomestic laws1128NNSlaw ,1129,, including1130VVGinclude theoretically1131RBtheoretically ...1132:... although1133INalthough there1134EXthere 's1135VBZbe no1136DTno evidence1137NNevidence that1138IN/thatthat this1139DTthis is1140VBZbe a1141DTa real1142JJreal problem1143NNproblem ...1144:... the1145DTthe kind1146NNkind of1147INof forced1148VVNforce arbitration1149NNarbitration that1150IN/thatthat you1151PPyou 're1152VBPbe positing1153VVGposit .1154SENT. In1155INin the1156DTthe situation1157NNsituation that1158IN/thatthat we1159PPwe have1160VHPhave here1161RBhere and1162CCand in1163INin the1164DTthe Chief1165NPChief Justice1166NPJustice 's1167POS's hypothetical1168JJhypothetical ,1169,, there1170EXthere 's1171VBZbe no1172DTno question1173NNquestion of1174INof forced1175JJforced arbitration1176NNarbitration .1177SENT. There1178EXthere is1179VBZbe indisputably1180RBindisputably a1181DTa valid1182JJvalid arbitration1183NNarbitration agreement1184NNagreement .1185SENT. The1186DTthe only1187JJonly question1188NNquestion is1189VBZbe can1190MDcan domestic1191JJdomestic law1192NNlaw supply1193NNsupply non-signatory1194JJnon-signatory enforcement1195NNenforcement doctrines1196NNSdoctrine in1197INin order1198NNorder to1199TOto allow1200VVallow ,1201,, again1202RBagain ,1203,, a1204DTa non-signatory1205JJnon-signatory ...1206:... [JUSTICE KAGAN]1207LOC[JUSTICE KAGAN] But1208CCbut you1209PPyou do1210VVPdo n't1211RBn't ...1212:... [JUSTICE BREYER]1213LOC[JUSTICE BREYER] The1214DTthe fact1215NNfact is1216VBZbe ,1217,, you1218PPyou started1219VVDstart out1220RPout very1221RBvery broadly1222RBbroadly ,1223,, and1224CCand suddenly1225RBsuddenly I1226PPI get1227VVPget worried1228JJworried ,1229,, are1230VBPbe some1231DTsome people1232NNSpeople who1233WPwho ...1234:... the1235DTthe seller1236NNseller agrees1237VVZagree that1238IN/thatthat I1239PPI 'll1240MDwill go1241VVgo to1242TOto arbitration1243NNarbitration ,1244,, I1245PPI agree1246VVPagree with1247INwith you1248PPyou ,1249,, okay1250JJokay ?1251SENT? Now1252RBnow ,1253,, I1254PPI do1255VVPdo n't1256RBn't want1257VVwant to1258TOto go1259VVgo .1260SENT. And1261CCand it1262PPit 's1263VBZbe not1264RBnot against1265INagainst you1266PPyou ;1267:; it1268PPit 's1269VBZbe against1270INagainst him1271PPhim .1272SENT. I1273PPI did1274VVDdo n't1275RBn't agree1276VVagree to1277TOto that1278DTthat or1279CCor did1280VVDdo I1281PPI ?1282SENT? Now1283RBnow ,1284,, I1285PPI thought1286VVDthink this1287DTthis is1288VBZbe quite1289RBquite narrow1290JJnarrow or1291CCor could1292MDcould be1293VBbe .1294SENT. What1295WPWhat actually1296RBactually either1297DTeither seller1298NNseller did1299VVDdo is1300VBZbe I1301PPI agreed1302VVDagree ,1303,, I1304PPI signed1305VVDsign a1306DTa party1307NNparty and1308CCand said1309VVDsay I1310PPI 'll1311MDwill go1312VVgo to1313TOto arbitration1314NNarbitration .1315SENT. And1316CCand ...1317:... but1318CCbut the1319DTthe ...1320:... when1321WRBwhen you1322PPyou use1323VVPuse the1324DTthe word1325NNword "1326``" seller1327NNseller ,1328,, "1329''" which1330WDTwhich I1331PPI think1332VVPthink maybe1333RBmaybe was1334VBDbe me1335PPme ;1336:; is1337VBZbe that1338IN/thatthat right1339RBright ,1340,, your1341PP$your opponent1342NNopponent ,1343,, that1344WDTthat includes1345VVZinclude subcontractors1346NNSsubcontractor in1347INin this1348DTthis contract1349NNcontract .1350SENT. And1351CCand ,1352,, by1353INby the1354DTthe way1355NNway ,1356,, you1357PPyou 're1358VBPbe a1359DTa subcontractor1360NNsubcontractor .1361SENT. And1362CCand you1363PPyou were1364VBDbe listed1365VVNlist .1366SENT. So1367RBso it1368PPit is1369VBZbe n't1370RBn't exactly1371RBexactly involuntary1372JJinvoluntary .1373SENT. Or1374CCor you1375PPyou and1376CCand I1377PPI agree1378VVPagree and1379CCand I1380PPI say1381VVPsay :1382:: Our1383PP$our contract1384NNcontract ,1385,, including1386VVGinclude arbitration1387NNarbitration ,1388,, is1389VBZbe for1390INfor the1391DTthe benefit1392NNbenefit of1393INof Mr1394NPMr .1395SENT. Johnson1396NPJohnson ,1397,, who1398WPwho is1399VBZbe a1400DTa third-party1401JJthird-party beneficiary1402NNbeneficiary for1403INfor everything1404NNeverything including1405VVGinclude arbitration1406NNarbitration .1407SENT. And1408CCand then1409RBthen the1410DTthe question1411NNquestion is1412VBZbe :1413:: Can1414MDcan Mr1415NPMr .1416SENT. Johnson1417NPJohnson bring1418VVPbring me1419PPme in1420RPin ?1421SENT? He1422PPhe did1423VVDdo n't1424RBn't sign1425VVsign it1426PPit .1427SENT. You1428PPyou signed1429VVDsign it1430PPit .1431SENT. Now1432RBnow ,1433,, can1434MDcan 't1435RB't we1436PPwe decide1437VVPdecide it1438PPit on1439INon a1440DTa narrow1441JJnarrow ground1442NNground like1443INlike that1444IN/thatthat by1445INby indeed1446RBindeed leading1447VVGlead up1448RPup to1449TOto the1450DTthe lower1451JJRlow court1452NNcourt all1453PDTall those1454DTthose questions1455NNSquestion about1456RBabout whether1457INwhether it1458PPit 's1459VBZbe really1460RBreally true1461JJtrue ,1462,, whether1463INwhether it1464PPit really1465RBreally is1466VBZbe n't1467RBn't true1468JJtrue that1469IN/thatthat a1470DTa third-party1471JJthird-party beneficiary1472NNbeneficiary can1473MDcan or1474CCor the1475DTthe person1476NNperson listed1477VVNlist in1478INin the1479DTthe seller1480NNseller 's1481POS's side1482NNside can1483MDcan ,1484,, and1485CCand just1486RBjust say1487VVPsay it1488PPit does1489VVZdo n't1490RBn't limit1491VVlimit it1492PPit to1493TOto where1494WRBwhere you1495PPyou 're1496VBPbe the1497DTthe one1498CDone who1499WPwho wants1500VVZwant to1501TOto bring1502VVbring me1503PPme into1504INinto arbitration1505NNarbitration .1506SENT. They1507PPthey 're1508VBPbe well1509RBwell established1510VVNestablish legal1511JJlegal doctrines1512NNSdoctrine .1513SENT. I1514PPI do1515VVPdo n't1516RBn't want1517VVwant to1518TOto make1519VVmake my1520PP$my argument1521NNargument for1522INfor you1523PPyou .1524SENT. I1525PPI want1526VVPwant you1527PPyou to1528TOto tell1529VVtell me1530PPme quite1531RBquite straightforward1532JJstraightforward ...1533:... and1534CCand I'll1535NPI'll ...1536:... in1537INin a1538DTa few1539JJfew seconds1540NNSsecond ,1541,, is1542VBZbe that1543IN/thatthat a1544DTa possible1545JJpossible argument1546NNargument in1547INin this1548DTthis case1549NNcase ?1550SENT? We1551PPwe just1552RBjust send1553VVPsend it1554PPit back1555RBback .1556SENT. [MR. DVORETZKY]1557LOC[MR. DVORETZKY] Yes1558NPYes ,1559,, Your1560PP$your Honor1561NPHonor .1562SENT. The1563DTthe ...1564:... the1565DTthe Eleventh1566JJeleventh Circuit1567NNcircuit held1568VVNhold ...1569:... the1570DTthe Eleventh1571JJeleventh Circuit1572NNcircuit held1573VVDhold that1574IN/thatthat only1575RBonly the1576DTthe signatories1577NNSsignatory to1578TOto the1579DTthe arbitration1580NNarbitration agreement1581NNagreement could1582MDcould enforce1583VVenforce it1584PPit .1585SENT. [JUSTICE BREYER]1586LOC[JUSTICE BREYER] And1587CCand ...1588:... [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]1589LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] Which1590WDTwhich is1591VBZbe a1592DTa fairly1593RBfairly basic1594JJbasic proposition1595NNproposition of1596INof law1597NNlaw .1598SENT. So1599RBso if1600INif we1601PPwe 're1602VBPbe going1603VVGgo to1604TOto send1605VVsend it1606PPit back1607RBback to1608TOto say1609VVsay why1610WRBwhy do1611VVPdo n't1612RBn't you1613PPyou see1614VVPsee if1615INif you1616PPyou can1617MDcan enforce1618VVenforce arbitration1619NNarbitration against1620INagainst somebody1621NNsomebody who1622WPwho did1623VVDdo n't1624RBn't sign1625VVsign the1626DTthe agreement1627NNagreement ,1628,, or1629CCor who1630WPwho was1631VBDbe n't1632RBn't ...1633:... it1634PPit 's1635VBZbe one1636CDone thing1637NNthing to1638TOto say1639VVsay ,1640,, okay1641RBokay ,1642,, your1643PP$your parent1644NNparent company1645NNcompany or1646CCor your1647PP$your subsidiary1648NNsubsidiary or1649CCor whatever1650WDTwhatever ,1651,, and1652CCand the1653DTthe fact1654NNfact that1655IN/thatthat you1656PPyou might1657MDmight say1658VVsay or1659CCor subcontractors1660NNSsubcontractor ,1661,, does1662VVZdo n't1663RBn't mean1664VVmean that1665IN/thatthat any1666DTany particular1667JJparticular subcontractor1668NNsubcontractor wants1669VVZwant to1670TOto arbitrate1671VVarbitrate .1672SENT. So1673RBso you1674PPyou 're1675VBPbe going1676VVGgo to1677TOto send1678VVsend it1679PPit back1680RBback for1681INfor ...1682:... I1683PPI mean1684VVPmean ,1685,, if1686INif someone1687NNsomeone is1688VBZbe going1689VVGgo to1690TOto adopt1691VVadopt such1692PDTsuch a1693DTa radical1694JJradical proposition1695NNproposition it1696PPit probably1697RBprobably should1698MDshould be1699VBbe us1700PPus ,1701,, rather1702RBrather than1703INthan send1704VVsend it1705PPit back1706RBback to1707TOto the1708DTthe Eleventh1709JJeleventh Circuit1710NNcircuit and1711CCand say1712VVPsay ,1713,, well1714RBwell ,1715,, if1716INif you1717PPyou want1718VVPwant to1719TOto go1720VVgo against1721INagainst all1722DTall ...1723:... all1724DTall of1725INof our1726PP$our precedents1727NNSprecedent in1728INin arbitration1729NNarbitration ,1730,, fine1731NNfine ,1732,, but1733CCbut we1734PPwe 're1735VBPbe not1736RBnot going1737VVGgo to1738TOto do1739VVdo it1740PPit .1741SENT. [MR. DVORETZKY]1742LOC[MR. DVORETZKY] So1743RBso ,1744,, Mr1745NPMr .1746SENT. Chief1747NPChief Justice1748NPJustice ...1749:... [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]1750LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] Not1751RBnot to1752TOto suggest1753VVsuggest I1754PPI have1755VHPhave a1756DTa view1757NNview either1758CCeither way1759NNway .1760SENT. [1761SYM[ LAUGHTER1762NNlaughter ]1763SYM] [MR. DVORETZKY]1764LOC[MR. DVORETZKY] I1765PPI ...1766:... I1767PPI do1768VVPdo n't1769RBn't think1770VVthink this1771DTthis is1772VBZbe contrary1773JJcontrary to1774TOto all1775DTall of1776INof this1777DTthis Court1778NPCourt 's1779POS's precedents1780NNSprecedent on1781INon arbitration1782NNarbitration .1783SENT. Just1784RBjust the1785DTthe opposite1786NNopposite .1787SENT. In1788INin Arthur1789NPArthur Andersen1790NPAndersen the1791DTthe Court1792NPCourt remanded1793VVDremand for1794INfor the1795DTthe lower1796JJRlow court1797NNcourt to1798TOto consider1799VVconsider whether1800INwhether an1801DTan equitable1802JJequitable estoppel1803NNestoppel theory1804NNtheory would1805MDwould allow1806VVallow a1807DTa non-signatory1808NNnon-signatory to1809TOto compel1810VVcompel arbitration1811NNarbitration .1812SENT. So1813CCso that1814WDTthat 's1815VBZbe ...1816:... [JUSTICE GINSBURG]1817LOC[JUSTICE GINSBURG] Can1818MDcan you1819PPyou ...1820:... [MR. DVORETZKY]1821LOC[MR. DVORETZKY] ...1822:... precisely1823RBprecisely ...1824:... [JUSTICE GINSBURG]1825LOC[JUSTICE GINSBURG] Can1826MDcan you1827PPyou ...1828:... can1829MDcan we1830PPwe ...1831:... can1832MDcan we1833PPwe understand1834VVunderstand why1835WRBwhy Respondent1836NNrespondent should1837MDshould be1838VBbe equitably1839RBequitably estopped1840VVNestop ?1841SENT? This1842DTthis case1843NNcase is1844VBZbe going1845VVGgo in1846INin the1847DTthe brief1848NNbrief ,1849,, and1850CCand so1851RBso far1852RBfar in1853INin the1854DTthe oral1855JJoral argument1856NNargument on1857INon a1858DTa level1859NNlevel once1860RBonce ...1861:... once1862RBonce removed1863VVNremove from1864INfrom the1865DTthe basic1866JJbasic facts1867NNSfact on1868INon the1869DTthe ground1870NNground .1871SENT. So1872RBso what1873WPwhat is1874VBZbe it1875PPit in1876INin this1877DTthis case1878NNcase that1879WDTthat makes1880VVZmake the1881DTthe doctrine1882NNdoctrine of1883INof equitable1884JJequitable estoppel1885NNestoppel appropriate1886JJappropriate ?1887SENT? [MR. DVORETZKY]1888LOC[MR. DVORETZKY] Let1889VVDlet me1890PPme make1891VVPmake two1892CDtwo points1893NNSpoint on1894INon that1895DTthat .1896SENT. One1897PPone is1898VBZbe the1899DTthe point1900NNpoint that1901IN/thatthat I1902PPI think1903VVPthink Justice1904NPJustice Breyer1905NPBreyer was1906VBDbe making1907VVGmake .1908SENT. On1909INon these1910DTthese particular1911JJparticular facts1912NNSfact ,1913,, GE1914NPGE energy1915NNenergy is1916VBZbe defined1917VVNdefine under1918INunder the1919DTthe contract1920NNcontract as1921INas a1922DTa party1923NNparty .1924SENT. The1925DTthe term1926NNterm "1927``" parties1928NNSparty "1929''" is1930VBZbe defined1931VVNdefine to1932TOto include1933VVinclude buyer1934NNbuyer and1935CCand seller1936NNseller ,1937,, "1938``" seller1939NNseller "1940''" is1941VBZbe defined1942VVNdefine to1943TOto include1944VVinclude subcontractor1945NNsubcontractor ,1946,, and1947CCand GE1948NPGE is1949VBZbe listed1950VVNlist in1951INin the1952DTthe contract1953NNcontract as1954INas one1955CDone of1956INof the1957DTthe subcontractors1958NNSsubcontractor that1959IN/thatthat the1960DTthe parties1961NNSparty contemplated1962VVDcontemplate using1963VVGuse .1964SENT. And1965CCand so1966RBso we1967PPwe are1968VBPbe actually1969RBactually a1970DTa party1971NNparty to1972TOto the1973DTthe contract1974NNcontract ,1975,, even1976RBeven though1977INthough we1978PPwe did1979VVDdo n't1980RBn't put1981VVput ...1982:... even1983RBeven though1984INthough we1985PPwe did1986VVDdo n't1987RBn't ink1988VVink the1989DTthe contract1990NNcontract with1991INwith our1992PP$our signature1993NNsignature .1994SENT. In1995INin addition1996NNaddition ...1997:... [JUSTICE GINSBURG]1998LOC[JUSTICE GINSBURG] And1999CCand ...2000:... and2001CCand ...2002:... even2003RBeven though2004RBthough at2005INat the2006DTthe time2007NNtime the2008DTthe contract2009NNcontract was2010VBDbe made2011VVNmake ,2012,, the2013DTthe subcontractors2014NNSsubcontractor had2015VHDhave n't2016RBn't been2017VBNbe picked2018VVNpick ,2019,, so2020INso there2021EXthere were2022VBDbe ...2023:... GE2024NPGE was2025VBDbe on2026INon a2027DTa list2028NNlist of2029INof potential2030JJpotential subcontractors2031NNSsubcontractor ,2032,, but2033CCbut was2034VBDbe not2035RBnot ,2036,, in2037INin fact2038NNfact ,2039,, a2040DTa subcontractor2041NNsubcontractor at2042INat the2043DTthe time2044NNtime of2045INof the2046DTthe arbitration2047NNarbitration agreement2048NNagreement ?2049SENT? [MR. DVORETZKY]2050LOC[MR. DVORETZKY] I2051PPI do2052VVPdo n't2053RBn't believe2054VVbelieve that2055IN/thatthat it2056PPit had2057VHDhave been2058VBNbe picked2059VVNpick ,2060,, but2061CCbut there2062EXthere were2063VBDbe active2064JJactive and2065CCand extensive2066JJextensive discussions2067NNSdiscussion ,2068,, including2069VVGinclude with2070INwith the2071DTthe Respondents2072NNSrespondent ,2073,, about2074RBabout using2075VVGuse GE2076NPGE as2077INas a2078DTa subcontractor2079NNsubcontractor ,2080,, so2081RBso it2082PPit was2083VBDbe certainly2084RBcertainly contemplated2085VVNcontemplate .2086SENT. And2087CCand if2088INif you2089PPyou ...2090:... if2091INif you2092PPyou follow2093VVPfollow the2094DTthe definitions2095NNSdefinition of2096INof seller2097NNseller and2098CCand ...2099:... and2100CCand ...2101:... buyer2102NNbuyer and2103CCand seller2104NNseller and2105CCand parties2106NNSparty in2107INin the2108DTthe contract2109NNcontract that2110IN/thatthat GE2111NPGE is2112VBZbe actually2113RBactually a2114DTa party2115NNparty to2116TOto the2117DTthe agreement2118NNagreement .2119SENT. As2120INas a2121DTa ...2122:... on2123INon a2124DTa more2125RBRmore doctrinal2126JJdoctrinal level2127NNlevel in2128INin terms2129NNSterm of2130INof equitable2131JJequitable estoppel2132NNestoppel ,2133,, equitable2134JJequitable estoppel2135NNestoppel is2136VBZbe a2137DTa way2138NNway of2139INof inferring2140VVGinfer consent2141NNconsent from2142INfrom conduct2143NNconduct .2144SENT. And2145CCand if2146INif the2147DTthe Respondents2148NNSrespondent sue2149VVsue us2150PPus ,2151,, as2152INas they2153PPthey did2154VVDdo in2155INin this2156DTthis case2157NNcase ,2158,, on2159INon a2160DTa theory2161NNtheory that2162WDTthat depends2163VVZdepend on2164INon the2165DTthe duty2166NNduty of2167INof care2168NNcare arising2169VVGarise out2170RPout of2171INof the2172DTthe contract2173NNcontract ,2174,, they2175PPthey are2176VBPbe in2177INin essence2178NNessence suing2179VVGsue us2180PPus on2181INon the2182DTthe contracts2183NNScontract .2184SENT. They2185PPthey can2186MDcan 't2187RB't cherry-pick2188NNcherry-pick to2189TOto invoke2190VVinvoke the2191DTthe duty2192NNduty of2193INof care2194NNcare from2195INfrom the2196DTthe contract2197NNcontract but2198CCbut to2199TOto avoid2200VVavoid their2201PP$their agreement2202NNagreement to2203TOto arbitrate2204VVarbitrate disputes2205NNSdispute under2206INunder that2207DTthat contract2208NNcontract .2209SENT. That2210DTthat ...2211:... that2212WDTthat would2213MDwould be2214VBbe the2215DTthe doctrinal2216JJdoctrinal basis2217NNbasis for2218INfor an2219DTan equitable2220JJequitable estoppel2221NNestoppel theory2222NNtheory .2223SENT. [JUSTICE GORSUCH]2224LOC[JUSTICE GORSUCH] Counsel2225NPCounsel ...2226:... [MR. DVORETZKY]2227LOC[MR. DVORETZKY] And2228CCand this2229DTthis ...2230:... [JUSTICE GORSUCH]2231LOC[JUSTICE GORSUCH] ...2232:... we2233PPwe 're2234VBPbe going2235VVGgo well2236RBwell down2237RBdown this2238DTthis rabbit2239NNrabbit hole2240NNhole on2241INon whether2242INwhether equitable2243JJequitable estoppel2244NNestoppel applies2245VVZapply in2246INin this2247DTthis case2248NNcase .2249SENT. But2250CCbut I2251PPI ...2252:... I2253PPI had2254VHDhave ...2255:... I2256PPI had2257VHDhave proceeded2258VVNproceed on2259RPon maybe2260RBmaybe on2261INon the2262DTthe mistaken2263JJmistaken assumption2264NNassumption that2265IN/thatthat the2266DTthe question2267NNquestion whether2268INwhether equitable2269JJequitable estoppel2270NNestoppel is2271VBZbe recognized2272VVNrecognize as2273INas a2274DTa viable2275JJviable theory2276NNtheory under2277INunder the2278DTthe Federal2279NPFederal Arbitration2280NPArbitration Act2281NPAct is2282VBZbe n't2283RBn't before2284INbefore us2285PPus .2286SENT. The2287DTthe only2288JJonly question2289NNquestion before2290INbefore us2291PPus is2292VBZbe whether2293INwhether anything2294NNanything in2295INin the2296DTthe convention2297NNconvention precludes2298VVZpreclude an2299DTan argument2300NNargument like2301INlike that2302WDTthat to2303TOto be2304VBbe made2305VVNmake under2306INunder the2307DTthe Federal2308NPFederal Arbitration2309NPArbitration Act2310NPAct ,2311,, whether2312INwhether or2313CCor not2314RBnot it2315PPit might2316MDmight succeed2317VVsucceed .2318SENT. Am2319VBPbe I2320PPI ...2321:... but2322CCbut I2323PPI ...2324:... am2325VBPbe I2326PPI mistaken2327VVNmistake ?2328SENT? [MR. DVORETZKY]2329LOC[MR. DVORETZKY] No2330NPNo ,2331,, that2332WDTthat ...2333:... that2334WDTthat 's2335VBZbe correct2336JJcorrect ,2337,, Justice2338NPJustice Gorsuch2339NPGorsuch .2340SENT. And2341CCand I2342PPI think2343VVPthink that2344WDTthat goes2345VVZgo to2346TOto Justice2347NPJustice Breyer2348NPBreyer 's2349POS's point2350NNpoint as2351INas well2352RBwell .2353SENT. The2354DTthe actual2355JJactual question2356NNquestion presented2357VVDpresent here2358RBhere is2359VBZbe quite2360RBquite narrow2361JJnarrow .2362SENT. And2363CCand that2364DTthat is2365VBZbe whether2366INwhether there2367EXthere is2368VBZbe anything2369NNanything in2370INin the2371DTthe New2372NPNew York2373NPYork Convention2374NPConvention that2375WDTthat prohibits2376VVZprohibit the2377DTthe application2378NNapplication of2379INof equitable2380JJequitable estoppel2381NNestoppel .2382SENT. [JUSTICE GORSUCH]2383LOC[JUSTICE GORSUCH] If2384INif it2385PPit exists2386VVZexist ,2387,, without2388INwithout prejudging2389VVGprejudge whether2390INwhether it2391PPit exists2392VVZexist .2393SENT. [MR. DVORETZKY]2394LOC[MR. DVORETZKY] Correct2395JJcorrect .2396SENT. [JUSTICE GORSUCH]2397LOC[JUSTICE GORSUCH] Okay2398NPOkay .2399SENT. [MR. DVORETZKY]2400LOC[MR. DVORETZKY] And2401CCand that2402DTthat ...2403:... much2404RBmuch the2405DTthe same2406JJsame as2407INas the2408DTthe posture2409NNposture in2410INin Arthur2411NPArthur Andersen2412NPAndersen where2413WRBwhere the2414DTthe Court2415NPCourt sent2416VVDsend the2417DTthe case2418NNcase back2419RBback for2420INfor the2421DTthe lower2422JJRlow courts2423NNScourt to2424TOto determine2425VVdetermine whether2426INwhether equitable2427JJequitable estoppel2428NNestoppel exists2429VVZexist under2430INunder the2431DTthe applicable2432JJapplicable law2433NNlaw and2434CCand ,2435,, if2436INif so2437RBso ,2438,, whether2439INwhether it2440PPit could2441MDcould be2442VBbe satisfied2443VVNsatisfy .2444SENT. [JUSTICE KAGAN]2445LOC[JUSTICE KAGAN] But2446CCbut Mr2447NPMr .2448SENT. Dvoretzky2449NPDvoretzky ,2450,, that2451WDTthat ...2452:... that2453WDTthat is2454VBZbe the2455DTthe question2456NNquestion .2457SENT. So2458RBso let2459VVlet 's2460VBZbe take2461VVtake a2462DTa look2463NNlook at2464INat Article2465NPArticle II2466NPII ,2467,, and2468CCand specifically2469RBspecifically the2470DTthe third2471JJthird sentence2472NNsentence because2473INbecause the2474DTthe third2475JJthird sentence2476NNsentence says2477VVZsay ,2478,, "2479``" The2480DTthe court2481NNcourt of2482INof a2483DTa contracting2484NNcontracting state2485NNstate "2486''" ...2487:... and2488CCand then2489RBthen I2490PPI 'm2491VBPbe going2492VVGgo to2493TOto skip2494VVskip some2495DTsome words2496NNSword ...2497:... "2498``" shall2499MDshall ,2500,, at2501INat the2502DTthe request2503NNrequest of2504INof one2505CDone of2506INof the2507DTthe parties2508NNSparty ,2509,, refer2510VVPrefer the2511DTthe parties2512NNSparty to2513TOto arbitration2514NNarbitration .2515SENT. "2516``" And2517CCand I2518PPI have2519VHPhave to2520TOto tell2521VVtell you2522PPyou ,2523,, I2524PPI think2525VVPthink that2526IN/thatthat the2527DTthe best2528JJSgood understanding2529NNunderstanding of2530INof the2531DTthe term2532NNterm "2533``" parties2534NNSparty "2535''" looking2536VVGlook at2537INat the2538DTthe three2539CDthree sentences2540NNSsentence of2541INof Article2542NPArticle II2543NPII ,2544,, let2545NNlet 's2546VBZbe just2547RBjust assume2548VVassume that2549IN/thatthat the2550DTthe best2551JJSgood understanding2552NNunderstanding is2553VBZbe the2554DTthe parties2555NNSparty to2556TOto the2557DTthe agreement2558NNagreement .2559SENT. So2560RBso this2561DTthis says2562VVZsay the2563DTthe parties2564NNSparty to2565TOto the2566DTthe agreement2567NNagreement are2568VBPbe requesting2569VVGrequest the2570DTthe arbitration2571NNarbitration .2572SENT. And2573CCand that2574DTthat 's2575VBZbe when2576WRBwhen the2577DTthe court2578NNcourt should2579MDshould refer2580VVrefer the2581DTthe arbitration2582NNarbitration .2583SENT. Now2584RBnow ,2585,, that2586WDTthat raises2587VVZraise the2588DTthe question2589NNquestion who2590WPwho 's2591VBZbe the2592DTthe party2593NNparty ?2594SENT? I2595PPI ...2596:... I2597PPI 'm2598VBPbe with2599INwith the2600DTthe Chief2601NPChief Justice2602NPJustice .2603SENT. If2604INif you2605PPyou 're2606VBPbe talking2607VVGtalk about2608INabout an2609DTan alter2610JJRalt ego2611NNego or2612CCor something2613NNsomething like2614INlike that2615DTthat ,2616,, or2617CCor a2618DTa successor-in-interest2619NNsuccessor-in-interest ,2620,, maybe2621RBmaybe that2622DTthat person2623NNperson counts2624VVZcount as2625INas a2626DTa party2627NNparty ,2628,, even2629RBeven though2630INthough it2631PPit is2632VBZbe not2633RBnot the2634DTthe signatory2635NNsignatory but2636CCbut there2637EXthere is2638VBZbe some2639DTsome limit2640NNlimit ,2641,, is2642VBZbe n't2643RBn't there2644RBthere ,2645,, that2646WDTthat is2647VBZbe imposed2648VVNimpose by2649INby that2650DTthat language2651NNlanguage of2652INof "2653``" the2654DTthe parties2655NNSparty "2656''" ?2657SENT? [MR. DVORETZKY]2658LOC[MR. DVORETZKY] Justice2659NPJustice Kagan2660NPKagan ,2661,, I2662PPI think2663VVPthink the2664DTthe key2665JJkey point2666NNpoint is2667VBZbe that2668IN/thatthat Article2669NPArticle III2670NPIII does2671VVZdo not2672RBnot say2673VVsay "2674``" only2675RBonly the2676DTthe parties2677NNSparty .2678SENT. "2679''" In2680INin other2681JJother words2682NNSword ,2683,, the2684DTthe bear2685NNbear minimum2686NNminimum the2687DTthe contracting2688NNcontracting states2689NNSstate agree2690VVPagree to2691TOto do2692VVdo is2693VBZbe to2694TOto refer2695VVrefer a2696DTa case2697NNcase to2698TOto arbitration2699NNarbitration if2700INif the2701DTthe parties2702NNSparty ...2703:... whether2704INwhether you2705PPyou think2706VVPthink that2707WDTthat 's2708VBZbe to2709TOto be2710VBbe ...2711:... [JUSTICE KAGAN]2712LOC[JUSTICE KAGAN] Well2713UHWell ,2714,, let2715VVDlet me2716PPme read2717VVPread you2718PPyou a2719DTa few2720JJfew sentences2721NNSsentence ,2722,, Mr2723NPMr .2724SENT. Dvoretzky2725NPDvoretzky and2726CCand you2727PPyou tell2728VVPtell me2729PPme whether2730INwhether you2731PPyou always2732RBalways have2733VHhave to2734TOto say2735VVsay "2736``" shall2737MDshall only2738RBonly "2739``" if2740INif you2741PPyou say2742VVPsay "2743``" shall2744MDshall .2745SENT. "2746``" If2747INif I2748PPI say2749VVPsay federal2750JJfederal courts2751NNScourt shall2752MDshall have2753VHhave jurisdiction2754NNjurisdiction over2755INover federal2756JJfederal questions2757NNSquestion ,2758,, would2759MDwould this2760DTthis statute2761NNstatute also2762RBalso permits2763VVZpermit those2764DTthose courts2765NNScourt to2766TOto exercise2767VVexercise jurisdiction2768NNjurisdiction over2769INover state2770NNstate questions2771NNSquestion ?2772SENT? [MR. DVORETZKY]2773LOC[MR. DVORETZKY] No2774NPNo ,2775,, and2776CCand Justice2777NPJustice Kagan2778NPKagan ,2779,, 112780CD@card@ I2781PPI ...2782:... I2783PPI ...2784:... [JUSTICE KAGAN]2785LOC[JUSTICE KAGAN] I2786PPI 'm2787VBPbe going2788VVGgo to2789TOto give2790VVgive you2791PPyou one2792CDone more2793JJRmore just2794RBjust to2795TOto prove2796VVprove the2797DTthe point2798NNpoint .2799SENT. [2800SYM[ LAUGHTER2801NNlaughter ]2802SYM] [JUSTICE KAGAN]2803LOC[JUSTICE KAGAN] Shareholders2804NNSshareholder shall2805MDshall appoint2806VVappoint two2807CDtwo directors2808NNSdirector to2809TOto the2810DTthe board2811NNboard .2812SENT. Does2813VVZdo that2814IN/thatthat mean2815JJmean shareholders2816NNSshareholder can2817MDcan appoint2818VVappoint 202819CD@card@ directors2820NNSdirector to2821TOto the2822DTthe board2823NNboard ?2824SENT? [MR. DVORETZKY]2825LOC[MR. DVORETZKY] No2826NPNo .2827SENT. [JUSTICE KAGAN]2828LOC[JUSTICE KAGAN] Because2829INbecause "2830``" shall2831MDshall "2832``" means2833NNmeans "2834''" shall2835MDshall only2836RBonly "2837''" in2838INin many2839JJmany circumstances2840NNScircumstance ,2841,, right2842RBright ?2843SENT? [MR. DVORETZKY]2844LOC[MR. DVORETZKY] It2845PPit ...2846:... it2847PPit depends2848VVZdepend on2849INon context2850NNcontext .2851SENT. [JUSTICE KAGAN]2852LOC[JUSTICE KAGAN] It2853PPit does2854VVZdo .2855SENT. [MR. DVORETZKY]2856LOC[MR. DVORETZKY] And2857CCand the2858DTthe context2859NNcontext here2860RBhere based2861VVNbase on2862INon the2863DTthe purpose2864NNpurpose of2865INof the2866DTthe Convention2867NNconvention ,2868,, based2869VVNbase on2870INon how2871WRBhow this2872DTthis Convention2873NNconvention has2874VHZhave been2875VBNbe nearly2876RBnearly universally2877RBuniversally understood2878VVNunderstand by2879INby contracting2880NNcontracting states2881NNSstate ,2882,, which2883WDTwhich is2884VBZbe a2885DTa key2886JJkey factor2887NNfactor in2888INin this2889DTthis Court2890NPCourt 's2891POS's treaty2892NNtreaty interpretation2893NNinterpretation jurisprudence2894NNjurisprudence ,2895,, is2896VBZbe that2897IN/thatthat this2898DTthis ...2899:... this2900DTthis provision2901NNprovision ,2902,, Article2903NPArticle II2904NPII (2905(( 32906CD3 )2907)) ,2908,, like2909INlike the2910DTthe rest2911NNrest of2912INof the2913DTthe Convention2914NNconvention ,2915,, is2916VBZbe just2917RBjust setting2918VVGset a2919DTa floor2920NNfloor on2921INon what2922WPwhat contracting2923NNcontracting states2924NNSstate agree2925VVPagree to2926TOto do2927VVdo .2928SENT. So2929RBso at2930INat a2931DTa minimum2932NNminimum ,2933,, they2934PPthey agree2935VVPagree that2936IN/thatthat they2937PPthey shall2938MDshall ...2939:... the2940DTthe courts2941NNScourt shall2942MDshall refer2943VVrefer cases2944NNScase to2945TOto arbitration2946NNarbitration when2947WRBwhen requested2948VVNrequest by2949INby the2950DTthe parties2951NNSparty ,2952,, but2953CCbut not2954RBnot that2955IN/thatthat they2956PPthey shall2957MDshall only2958RBonly do2959VVdo so2960RBso .2961SENT. You2962PPyou can2963MDcan of2964INof course2965NNcourse come2966VVNcome up2967RPup with2968INwith examples2969NNSexample where2970WRBwhere "2971``" shall2972MDshall "2973``" does2974VVZdo mean2975VVmean "2976``" shall2977MDshall only2978RBonly ,2979,, "2980``" but2981CCbut it2982PPit does2983VVZdo ...2984:... it2985PPit does2986VVZdo n't2987RBn't mean2988VVmean that2989IN/thatthat here2990RBhere .2991SENT. And2992CCand ...2993:... [JUSTICE KAGAN]2994LOC[JUSTICE KAGAN] Right2995RBright .2996SENT. So2997RBso I2998PPI guess2999VVPguess that3000WDTthat brings3001VVZbring us3002PPus back3003RBback to3004TOto the3005DTthe question3006NNquestion that3007IN/thatthat Justice3008NPJustice Alito3009NPAlito started3010VVDstart us3011PPus off3012RPoff with3013INwith ,3014,, because3015INbecause I3016PPI think3017VVPthink that3018IN/thatthat that3019DTthat 's3020VBZbe relevant3021JJrelevant to3022TOto the3023DTthe context3024NNcontext in3025INin which3026WDTwhich we3027PPwe 're3028VBPbe viewing3029VVGview this3030DTthis Convention3031NNconvention ,3032,, which3033WDTwhich is3034VBZbe the3035DTthe assumption3036NNassumption on3037INon the3038DTthe part3039NNpart of3040INof the3041DTthe United3042NPUnited States3043NPStates Congress3044NPCongress when3045WRBwhen it3046PPit passed3047VVDpass the3048DTthe FAA3049NPFAA and3050CCand surely3051RBsurely the3052DTthe ...3053:... those3054DTthose who3055WPwho entered3056VVDenter into3057INinto the3058DTthe Convention3059NPConvention ,3060,, the3061DTthe Convention3062NNconvention was3063VBDbe a3064DTa matter3065NNmatter of3066INof ...3067:... excuse3068VVexcuse me3069PPme ...3070:... that3071DTthat arbitration3072NNarbitration was3073VBDbe a3074DTa matter3075NNmatter of3076INof voluntary3077JJvoluntary consent3078NNconsent .3079SENT. I3080PPI mean3081VVPmean ,3082,, so3083RBso if3084INif it3085PPit 's3086VBZbe a3087DTa matter3088NNmatter of3089INof voluntary3090JJvoluntary consent3091NNconsent ,3092,, and3093CCand everybody3094NNeverybody thinks3095VVZthink that3096IN/thatthat that3097DTthat 's3098VBZbe what3099WPwhat arbitration3100NNarbitration is3101VBZbe ,3102,, should3103MDshould n't3104RBn't we3105PPwe read3106VVPread "3107``" the3108DTthe parties3109NNSparty "3110''" to3111TOto be3112VBbe ,3113,, you3114PPyou know3115VVPknow ,3116,, the3117DTthe parties3118NNSparty ?3119SENT? Nobody3120NNnobody else3121RBelse .3122SENT. [MR. DVORETZKY]3123LOC[MR. DVORETZKY] And3124CCand again3125RBagain I3126PPI would3127MDwould take3128VVtake you3129PPyou back3130RBback to3131TOto Arthur3132NPArthur Andersen3133NPAndersen .3134SENT. Certainly3135RBcertainly under3136INunder domestic3137JJdomestic law3138NNlaw it3139PPit is3140VBZbe understood3141VVNunderstand to3142TOto be3143VBbe a3144DTa matter3145NNmatter of3146INof voluntary3147JJvoluntary consent3148NNconsent but3149CCbut the3150DTthe Court3151NPCourt saw3152VVDsee no3153DTno issue3154NNissue with3155INwith the3156DTthe possibility3157NNpossibility of3158INof an3159DTan equitable3160JJequitable estoppel3161NNestoppel theory3162NNtheory that3163WDTthat would3164MDwould allow3165VVallow a3166DTa non-party3167JJnon-party to3168TOto enforce3169VVenforce .3170SENT. The3171DTthe Convention3172NNconvention does3173VVZdo not3174RBnot contain3175VVcontain an3176DTan independent3177JJindependent consent3178NNconsent requirement3179NNrequirement .3180SENT. It3181PPit just3182RBjust does3183VVZdo n't3184RBn't ...3185:... it3186PPit just3187RBjust does3188VVZdo n't3189RBn't say3190VVsay that3191DTthat .3192SENT. And3193CCand it3194PPit would3195MDwould be3196VBbe inconsistent3197JJinconsistent with3198INwith its3199PP$its purpose3200NNpurpose to3201TOto have3202VHhave that3203DTthat because3204INbecause ,3205,, again3206RBagain ,3207,, the3208DTthe backdrop3209NNbackdrop to3210TOto the3211DTthe Convention3212NNconvention was3213VBDbe there3214EXthere was3215VBDbe widespread3216JJwidespread mistrust3217NNmistrust of3218INof arbitration3219NNarbitration agreements3220NNSagreement .3221SENT. Agreements3222NNSagreement were3223VBDbe not3224RBnot being3225VBGbe enforced3226VVNenforce .3227SENT. The3228DTthe Convention3229NNconvention set3230VVDset out3231RPout to3232TOto remedy3233VVremedy that3234DTthat problem3235NNproblem and3236CCand to3237TOto provide3238VVprovide for3239INfor more3240JJRmore enforcement3241NNenforcement of3242INof arbitration3243NNarbitration ,3244,, not3245RBnot less3246JJRless than3247INthan that3248DTthat .3249SENT. [JUSTICE GORSUCH]3250LOC[JUSTICE GORSUCH] Counsel3251NPCounsel ,3252,, we3253PPwe often3254RBoften ...3255:... [MR. DVORETZKY]3256LOC[MR. DVORETZKY] But3257CCbut ,3258,, moreover3259RBmoreover ...3260:... [JUSTICE GORSUCH]3261LOC[JUSTICE GORSUCH] ...3262:... we3263PPwe often3264RBoften ...3265:... I3266PPI 'm3267VBPbe sorry3268JJsorry .3269SENT. [JUSTICE ALITO]3270LOC[JUSTICE ALITO] Is3271VBZbe it3272PPit ...3273:... is3274VBZbe it3275PPit necessary3276JJnecessary to3277TOto go3278VVgo so3279RBso far3280RBfar as3281RBas to3282TOto say3283VVsay that3284IN/thatthat the3285DTthe Convention3286NNconvention says3287VVZsay nothing3288NNnothing about3289INabout what3290WPwhat the3291DTthe relevant3292JJrelevant law3293NNlaw of3294INof a3295DTa particular3296JJparticular jurisdiction3297NNjurisdiction says3298VVZsay about3299RBabout who3300WPwho can3301MDcan enforce3302VVenforce an3303DTan arbitration3304NNarbitration agreement3305NNagreement or3306CCor could3307MDcould it3308PPit say3309VVsay ...3310:... could3311MDcould it3312PPit perhaps3313RBperhaps go3314VVPgo beyond3315INbeyond strictly3316RBstrictly the3317DTthe signatories3318NNSsignatory to3319TOto the3320DTthe agreement3321NNagreement and3322CCand encompass3323VVencompass some3324DTsome other3325JJother non-parties3326NNSnon-parties that3327WDTthat have3328VHPhave a3329DTa sufficient3330JJsufficient ...3331:... that3332WDTthat have3333VHPhave a3334DTa close3335JJclose connection3336NNconnection ,3337,, as3338RBas would3339MDwould be3340VBbe the3341DTthe case3342NNcase with3343INwith somebody3344NNsomebody who3345WPwho was3346VBDbe equitably3347RBequitably estopped3348VVNestop ?3349SENT? [MR. DVORETZKY]3350LOC[MR. DVORETZKY] If3351INif I3352PPI may3353MDmay answer3354VVanswer ?3355SENT? [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]3356LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] Sure3357NPSure .3358SENT. Sure3359JJsure .3360SENT. [MR. DVORETZKY]3361LOC[MR. DVORETZKY] I3362PPI think3363VVPthink that3364WDTthat 's3365VBZbe right3366JJright and3367CCand it3368PPit 's3369VBZbe not3370RBnot just3371RBjust equitable3372JJequitable estoppel3373NNestoppel .3374SENT. There3375EXthere are3376VBPbe a3377DTa number3378NNnumber of3379INof non-signatory3380JJnon-signatory doctrines3381NNSdoctrine including3382VVGinclude alter3383JJRalt ego3384NNego and3385CCand veil3386VVveil piercing3387VVGpierce ,3388,, for3389INfor example3390NNexample ,3391,, that3392IN/thatthat the3393DTthe other3394JJother side3395NNside points3396NNSpoint to3397TOto as3398RBas valid3399JJvalid under3400INunder the3401DTthe Convention3402NNconvention ,3403,, even3404RBeven though3405INthough those3406DTthose can3407MDcan 't3408RB't be3409VBbe thought3410VVNthink of3411INof as3412RBas consensual3413JJconsensual ;3414:; just3415RBjust the3416DTthe opposite3417NNopposite ,3418,, an3419DTan alter-ego3420NNalter-ego theory3421NNtheory and3422CCand the3423DTthe veil-piercing3424NNveil-piercing theory3425NNtheory are3426VBPbe disregarding3427VVGdisregard the3428DTthe consent3429NNconsent of3430INof the3431DTthe parties3432NNSparty and3433CCand holding3434VVGhold them3435PPthem to3436TOto the3437DTthe agreement3438NNagreement any3439DTany way3440NNway .3441SENT. [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]3442LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] Thank3443VVthank you3444PPyou ,3445,, counsel3446NNcounsel .3447SENT. Mr3448NPMr .3449SENT. Ellis3450NPEllis .3451SENT.