The Law of Unintended Consequences: Supreme Court Jurisdiction over Interlocutory Class Certification Rulings

By Gant, Scott E. | Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, Fall 2004 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

The Law of Unintended Consequences: Supreme Court Jurisdiction over Interlocutory Class Certification Rulings


Gant, Scott E., Journal of Appellate Practice and Process


In recent decades the number of class actions filed in federal court has increased dramatically. (1) In many such cases, a ruling on the propriety of class certification effectively determines the outcome of the litigation. A denial of certification often means the end of the case because plaintiffs conclude that pursuing their claims on any basis other than as a class action fails to make economic sense. On the other hand, even in a case with relatively weak merits, certification may put what one court has described as "inordinate or hydraulic pressure" on defendants to settle in order to avoid the risk of substantial liability. (2) Despite the high stakes often dependent on certification decisions, such rulings are interlocutory and therefore not appealable under 28 U.S.C. [section] 1291, the principal statute granting appellate jurisdiction to the courts of appeals.

In recognition of the proliferation of class actions and the benefits afforded by immediate review of certification rulings in some cases, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended in 1998 to allow interlocutory appellate review by courts of appeals of district court class certification rulings. Specifically, a new subsection was added to Rule 23, which addresses class actions in the federal courts. (3) Rule 23(f) provides:

   A court of appeals may in its discretion permit an appeal
   from an order of a district court granting or denying class
   action certification under this rule if application is made to
   it within ten days after entry of the order. An appeal does
   not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district
   judge or the court of appeals so orders. (4)

Both the Rule itself and the Advisory Committee Notes accompanying it suggest that courts of appeals have "unfettered discretion" (5) to decide whether to entertain review of a district court class certification ruling. (6) Although almost all circuits have set forth standards under which they will review a class certification ruling under Rule 23(f), (7) review has been granted in relatively few cases. (8)

Ordinarily, the only recourse for a litigant dissatisfied with a ruling or action by a court of appeals is to seek review from the Supreme Court. While there is no guarantee that the Court will agree to hear a case--in fact the odds are decidedly against it(9)--many litigants avail themselves of the fight to request review. But does even the remote prospect of Supreme Court review exist when a party has been unsuccessful in persuading a court of appeals to grant its request for interlocutory review of a district court class certification ruling? More specifically, does the Court have jurisdiction under its certiorari authority to review either the court of appeals's denial of a Rule 23(f) petition, or the underlying substantive issues related to class certification? To date the Court itself has not answered this question, (10) and its prior decisions provide surprisingly little guidance about how the Court would rule were it to decide the issue. (11)

A. SUPREME COURT CERTIORARI JURISDICTION

The Supreme Court has "original jurisdiction" over certain types of cases specified in Article III of the Constitution, (12) but the scope of its jurisdiction is otherwise determined by Congress. (13) For about a century, beginning with the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Supreme Court's jurisdiction was entirely mandatory, and its review confined to cases in which the parties had a right to appeal. That changed with the Circuit Court of Appeals Act of 1891, which created the intermediate federal appellate system and granted the Supreme Court discretion to review certain types of cases decided by the circuit courts of appeals. That movement toward greater discretion for the Court in shaping its own docket continued with the Judiciary Act of 1925, after which, for the first time, the Court's cases reviewed by writ of certiorari outnumbered those reviewed on the basis of a mandatory appeal.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

The Law of Unintended Consequences: Supreme Court Jurisdiction over Interlocutory Class Certification Rulings
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?