The U.S. Supreme Court has shown a pattern this term of initially agreeing to hear class action cases brought by corporate entities, only to later decide that these cases were not rightly within its purview. This has led to several instances where the court has “dismissed as improvidently granted” (DIG), signaling that the justices believe they should not have accepted the case for review.
Most recently, the justices dismissed such a case involving Labcorp, which sought to restrict participation in a class action alleging discrimination against blind individuals. This dismissal follows similar ones involving securities fraud class actions linked to Meta Platforms Inc., parent company of Facebook. In each of these instances, the Supreme Court’s decision to DIG highlights an emerging trend in how class action appeals are being handled.
The trend raises questions about the Supreme Court’s criteria for selecting cases and the implications for corporate entities seeking to limit class action litigation. This emerging pattern suggests a heightened scrutiny by the justices about the appropriateness of their docket choices concerning class actions. For more information on this ongoing development, visit Bloomberg Law’s coverage.