Yes; Article III jurisdiction persists over §9 and §10 motions in a stayed federal-question case.

1) The question is whether a federal court retains Article III jurisdiction to hear motions under FAA §§9 and §10 to confirm or vacate an arbitral award after staying original federal claims under §3, even without independent jurisdiction on the motions' face. 2) Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 extends 'the judicial Power... to all Cases... arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States'; Article III, Section 1 vests 'the judicial Power of the United States... in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may... ordain and establish'; Congress validly conferred jurisdiction via laws like 28 U.S.C. §1331 for cases arising under federal laws such as the FAA. 3) At ratification, Founders understood federal courts to hear all 'cases' presenting live controversies under federal law from filing until final resolution, without extinguishing jurisdiction via stays; Federalist No. 78 describes judicial power as extending to full disposition of suits properly invoked, and equity courts routinely supervised private dispute resolutions like arbitrations common in 1789 commerce. Bill of Rights reinforces via Fifth Amendment Due Process, ensuring stayed litigants a federal forum for final adjudication. 4) The holding is yes: the original federal-question case remains a live Article III 'case' after a §3 stay, empowering the court to resolve §9/§10 motions integral to closing it; no constitutional bar exists absent dismissal. 5) Downstream, federal courts superintend stayed arbitrations to judgment without new filings; standalone §9/§10 actions require independent jurisdiction; promotes efficient federal oversight of FAA-mandated processes.