Case Overview

The U.S. Supreme Court recently convened to address Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis, a case involving class action certification. The central issue at hand is whether a district court can certify a class that includes claimants who have not demonstrated any recognizable injury.

In this case, a group of blind individuals filed a lawsuit against Labcorp due to the installation of automated check-in kiosks during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs allege that these kiosks discriminate against blind users. Initial court definitions of the class excluded individuals unaware of or unwilling to use the kiosks, arguing that they had not suffered an injury. However, this definition was later broadened to include anyone visiting a Labcorp facility, regardless of their intent to use the kiosks.

Procedural Disputes

Labcorp has contested this modified class definition, but their appeal focused solely on the prior definition, leading the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to rule that it lacked jurisdiction to review the modified definition. Consequently, the Supreme Court faces the unusual situation of evaluating a definition that the defendant never appealed.

Judicial Sentiment

During oral arguments, several justices expressed skepticism regarding Labcorp’s stance. Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Sonia Sotomayor articulated the view that the court lacked sufficient reason to further examine the second definition and suggested sending the case back to lower courts for consideration of Labcorp’s potential challenges.

In addressing Labcorp’s argument—that all class members must experience the same injury—the justices, including Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, highlighted the fluid nature of class definitions. Sotomayor remarked, “class definitions get amended constantly,” implying that precise injury identification is often not required until final judgments are rendered.

Commonality Concerns

Justices Gorsuch and Kagan raised questions about the necessity of “commonality” among class members. Gorsuch specifically challenged the assertion that all participants must share a common injury, emphasizing that it’s sufficient for the class to present at least one predominant common question.

Kagan further noted the historical context of class actions, indicating that variations among members regarding injuries or standing have not typically prevented class certification. She suggested that applying a stringent criterion could undermine decades of class action practice.

Looking Ahead

Despite some acknowledgment of Labcorp’s concerns by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who referred to the pressures class certification places on defendants, they did not propose a clear solution to address the procedural complexities revealed during the arguments.

The justices’ apparent lack of interest in navigating these procedural obstacles raises questions about the Court’s willingness to address broader class action implications in this case. Observations from several justices indicate a consensus against pushing forward on this contentious issue, potentially leaving lower courts to navigate these murky legal waters.