The U.S. Supreme Court granted a reprieve to the crypto exchange Coinbase on Friday. It ruled that the lawsuit brought by one of its users could not proceed until Coinbase defended an appeal of a ruling from a lower court.

The majority of 5-4 allowed Coinbase to proceed with its efforts to force arbitration in response to the putative class-action lawsuit. This decision halted the progress of the case through the federal courts. Coinbase has won, but it doesn’t have much of an impact on the crypto market.

The only question is whether or not the district court should stay its proceedings during the interlocutory appellation. The majority ruled that the district court should stay its proceedings.

Read more: Coinbase Argues a Arbitration Case before the U.S. Supreme Court As Crypto Makes its Debut

Coinbase was denied an initial ruling in the putative class-action lawsuit when the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California refused its motion to force arbitration. Coinbase also lost its appeal against that ruling. The original plan was to have the lawsuit proceed based on certain merits.

The Supreme Court’s ruling does not touch on crypto-related issues, other than the fact that Coinbase was one of the parties involved. It is the first time that a crypto company has argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, and this could have an impact on any other lawsuits brought against the crypto exchange.

After Friday’s decision, Coinbase may continue to try and compel arbitration.

The ruling stated that “We expect the Ninth Circuit to proceed expeditiously in this case, as well as with [appeals] generally, when considering Coinbase’s interlocutory appel from the denial the motion for arbitration.” “We reverse judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this case to further proceedings consistent with our opinion.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a dissent, with the support of Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Clarence Thomas signed on to certain sections.

The Court has concluded for the first-time that a district court cannot proceed on a merits issue if it is unable to decide an interlocutory matter (arbitrability). This logic may have such serious implications for federal litigation, that even the majority is reluctant to open the Pandora’s Box it has opened.

Jesse Hamilton is the editor.