A recent Supreme Court decision delivered a victory for arbitration, which is a benefit for small business owners.

In its June 23 decision in Coinbase v. Bielski, the high court recognized that the benefits of arbitration could be lost if litigation is allowed to proceed before a court figures out if the case belongs in court at all.

The result — district courts are required to automatically stay litigation while the parties appeal whether the claim should instead go to arbitration.

That only makes sense. That’s the whole point of arbitration.

According to the California Chamber of Commerce, the ruling also represents a blow to supporters of SB 365 by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco). Identified by CalChamber as a “Job Killer,” SB 365 proposed to allow litigation to proceed even with a disagreement about whether the case is appropriate for arbitration.

“The ruling in Coinbase underscores growing judicial support for business in defending their right to use arbitration as a cost-effective means to resolve disputes,” according to the CalChamber.

Another bill, AB 51, attempted to preclude California employers from requiring arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. It’s currently locked in litigation, with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in employers’ favor back in February.

The high cost of litigation is weaponized against businesses, especially in California. The Supreme Court is taking a more utilitarian view on the matter, which is a victory for common sense.

“If the district court could move forward with pre-trial and trial proceedings while the appeal on arbitrability was ongoing, then many of the asserted benefits of arbitration (efficiency, less expense, less intrusive discovery, and the like) would be irretrievably lost — even if the court of appeals later concluded that the case actually had belonged in arbitration all along, “ the U.S. Supreme Court stated.