lawrota.com

Class Actions, Injury, and the Supreme Court: A Procedural Puzzle in Labcorp v. Davis
— A Legal Breakdown for Practicing Attorneys and Law Students

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis, a case that began with a basic Americans with Disabilities Act claim but evolved into a tangled procedural dispute over class certification and federal court jurisdiction. Although the justices initially agreed to determine whether a district court can certify a class including members who suffered no recognizable injury, the argument largely revolved around whether the Supreme Court should even be deciding the issue.

At its core, the case involves blind plaintiffs who sued Labcorp after the company installed self-service check-in kiosks at its facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs alleged that the kiosks were inaccessible to the visually impaired, violating the ADA. But the class definition became the legal battleground.

Initially, the district court limited the class to those who wanted to use the kiosk but were unable due to their disability—essentially, people who could demonstrate some form of injury. Labcorp appealed that definition. But then, the district court changed course, expanding the class to include all blind individuals who visited the clinic, regardless of whether they wanted to use the kiosk or were even aware of it.

Here’s the procedural snag: Labcorp never formally appealed the second (expanded) definition, meaning that the Supreme Court is technically being asked to rule on a definition that is no longer relevant. That procedural oversight left many of the justices skeptical about whether the Court even had jurisdiction to decide the question it initially agreed to address.

Jurisdictional Confusion: Who’s Arguing What?

Much of the oral argument was dominated not by class action doctrine but by procedural mechanics. Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Sonia Sotomayor were quick to question why the Court should weigh in on a definition that was never appealed. Their concern? The proper course may be to send the case back to the lower courts for clarification.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had already dismissed Labcorp’s challenge on jurisdictional grounds, and several justices appeared inclined to agree. Still, the Court discussed broader questions about the structure and timing of class certification, particularly when not every class member may share the same injury.

What Does It Mean to Be “Injured” in a Class Action?

Labcorp’s central argument was that class certification requires a common, shared injury among all members—without that, it claimed, there’s no standing under Article III of the Constitution. However, Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Neil Gorsuch, and Sotomayor were skeptical of this interpretation.

Sotomayor, drawing on her experience as a trial judge, noted that class definitions are often fluid. “You don’t have to finalize the definition until the judgment,” she said, emphasizing that the real task is to ensure a mechanism exists to identify injured individuals before any damages are awarded.

Justice Kagan echoed that sentiment, arguing that “the court is not doing anything with respect to those claims until the court actually provides damages.” Her perspective aligned with traditional Rule 23 principles: as long as common questions predominate and the named plaintiffs’ claims are typical, the case can proceed.

Gorsuch, often considered a conservative textualist, appeared persuaded by these pragmatic concerns. He seemed content that the plaintiffs’ class included common legal questions sufficient to justify certification.

The “Commonality” Debate: A Shifting Legal Landscape

Representing the federal government, attorney Sopan Joshi insisted that every class member must share a “common injury” to satisfy both Article III standing and Rule 23’s commonality requirement. But Gorsuch and Kagan pushed back, suggesting that Joshi’s view would upend decades of class action practice.

Kagan warned that applying such a strict rule would “explode everything” and contradict decades of precedents where class actions included members with minor variations in harm or standing. In practice, every class has some members who might not meet the threshold for injury, but this hasn’t previously barred certification.

The Elephant in the Room: Class Certification as Settlement Pressure

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh acknowledged the strategic weight that class certification carries. They observed that certifying a class often forces defendants to settle, regardless of the case’s merits. However, neither justice offered a procedural way to resolve that concern within the current jurisdictional posture.

Even so, their comments underscore a longstanding tension in class litigation: certification is not a neutral act. It raises the stakes so dramatically that some justices (especially on the conservative wing) are wary of approving expansive class definitions without rigorous scrutiny.

Where Do We Go From Here?

With the Court divided over both the jurisdictional and substantive questions, and with major voices—Barrett, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Sotomayor—casting doubt on Labcorp’s standing to even pursue the appeal, a remand seems likely. If the justices avoid the central issue, the case may return to the lower courts for further procedural clarification.

Still, the legal community should watch closely. A definitive ruling limiting class certification to only those with clearly defined injuries could drastically reshape consumer protection, ADA enforcement, and other high-volume class action litigation.

For now, the key takeaway is procedural: precision in appellate strategy is critical. Labcorp’s failure to appeal the right class definition may cost them the opportunity to reshape class action doctrine at the Supreme Court level.

#SupremeCourt #ClassActionLaw #LegalProcedures #Rule23 #ADACompliance #FederalLitigation #SCOTUSwatch #CivilRightsLaw #LegalNews #LawStudentLife #LegalProfessionals

Source: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/class-action-question-turns-into-procedural-dispute/