Overview
On April 7, 2025, Cohen Milstein filed an amicus brief on behalf of distinguished federal jurisdiction scholars in support of respondents in the Supreme Court case Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, D/B/A Labcorp v. Luke Davis, et al. (24-304).
Respondents, individuals who are legally blind, brought a class action lawsuit against Labcorp in 2020. They allege that Labcorp’s Express Self Check-In kiosks violate federal and California disability laws because they are not accessible to the blind.
Before the Supreme Court, Labcorp challenges the Ninth Circuit’s affirmance of the district court’s decision to certify the class and contends that both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Article III of the Constitution prohibit class certification if the proposed class includes uninjured class members.
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on April 29, 2025 on the question of whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury?
Amici are legal scholars with expertise in federal courts, federal jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:
- Erwin Chemerinsky is the Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law.
- Richard H. Frankel is a Professor of Law at Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law.Â
- Margaret Kwoka is the Lawrence Herman Professor in Law at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.
- Marin Levy is a Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke University School of Law.
- Alexander A. Reinert is the Max Freund Professor of Litigation & Advocacy at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.
- Adam Steinman is Professor of Law at Texas A&M University School of Law, where he teaches Federal Courts.
- David C. Vladeck is the A.B. Chettle, Jr., Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center.
The amicus brief examines the tangle of jurisdictional, prudential, and factual issues in the case that stem from Labcorp’s appeal of the wrong class certification order. Amici offer this brief to assist the Court in evaluating the scope of its certiorari jurisdiction, the exercise of its discretion to dismiss improvidently granted petitions, and its unflagging obligation to assure itself that there exists a live controversy before it.
As there is no live controversy here with respect to the only class certification order within the bounds of the Court’s jurisdiction, Amici urge the Court to dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted or as moot.