Plain-English summary
Court dismisses review of whether class certification can include members with no Article III injury
The Court agreed to consider whether a federal court may certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class when some putative members lack Article III injury, but later dismissed the writ as improvidently granted (DIG). The per curiam dismissal ends review without resolving the legal question; Justice Kavanaugh dissented from the dismissal.
Why this matters
The question goes to who can be included in nationwide class actions in federal court. If the Court had decided that classes cannot include members without Article III injuries, many existing and future class suits might shrink or be harder to certify. Because the Court dismissed the case, lower courts must continue to work out the issue, and there remains uncertainty for litigants and businesses about how to handle class certification when some proposed members lack a concrete injury.
Who may feel it
- Plaintiffs and class counsel who bring or seek class certification in federal court
- Defendants facing class actions (companies, insurers, employers)
- Federal courts handling class-certification decisions
- Consumer and public-interest groups involved in large-scale litigation
Key questions
- May a federal court certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class when some putative class members lack the Article III requirement of a concrete injury?