Whether section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act should be used to shield the Federal Arbitration Act's Section 1 exemption claim denials from judicial review, and whether this action premises the constitutional violation of the Equal Protection Clause

QUESTIONS PRESENTED District courts have always had inherent powers to dismiss a case when a dismissal is appropriate under the circumstances. Likewise, the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes . on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants has been acknowledged. Here, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) seems to give the District Court an unreviewable discretion similar to Boumediene v. Bush where the district court appears to shield itself from being challenged on their erroneous decision that found Petitioner not to be exempt from The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) under Section 1. The District Court accomplishes this by erroneously applying Section 3 of the FAA and staying the case, not the trial, pending arbitration. The questions presented are: . Whether section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act should be used to shield the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exemption claim denials from judicial review, and whether this action premises the constitutional violation of the Equal Protection Clause, which : prevents the differential governmental treatment of those attempting to exercise their right for judicial review when all claims are supposedly subject to arbitration. Whether section 16 of the Federal Arbitration Act renders the whole Statute unconstitutional for violating litigants’ equal protection under the Law QUESTIONS PRESENTED—Continued rights by prohibiting interlocutory appeals following a Section 1 exemption claim denial. Whether the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFASASHA) implicitly renders Congressional intent to promote arbitration moot, and renders the Federal Arbitration , Act’s constitutionality unfruitful.