In a case that illustrates the procedural complexities inherent in the U.S. judicial system, the Supreme Court recently entertained arguments in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis. At the center of this legal clash is the question of whether a district court’s class action certification should include claimants who have not suffered any discernible injury.
The backdrop involves a group of individuals who are blind, filing suit against Labcorp. Their claim arises from the installation of automated check-in kiosks during the COVID-19 era, which allegedly discriminate against those with visual impairments. Initial district court rulings defined the class as excluding those who either did not know about or did not wish to use the kiosks. The court later revised this to include everyone who visited, regardless of their intent to use the kiosks.
Labcorp’s legal challenge concentrates on the first definition. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that because Labcorp didn’t contest the second definition, it lacked jurisdiction to review it. This procedural lapse has now reached the Supreme Court, opening debates that reveal justices’ divergent views on class action stipulations.
During the hearings, justices like Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor appeared skeptical of Labcorp’s stance that class members must share a common injury. As Sotomayor said, class definitions are inherently “fluid,” a view echoed by Kagan. Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that while only one issue must predominate, achieving commonality might not require identical injuries for all claimants.
On the other hand, Justices such as John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh raised concerns over class certification pressures potentially forcing settlements, though without outlining any procedural remedies. Meanwhile, Gorsuch and Kagan’s insistence stands in contrast to Sopan Joshi’s argument for shared injury commonality in class actions.
Despite the discursive tensions, the overall skepticism towards Labcorp’s current appeal suggests a limited judicial inclination to resolve the class action’s core issues during this term. Instead, the situation underscores the nuanced complexities and procedural hurdles present in high-stakes litigation.