With the Supreme Court in the news so often for high-profile decisions affecting the political landscape, it can be easy to overlook some of their smaller (but no less important) decisions. Case in point—last week, the Supreme Court ruled on a class action appeal that made it nearly impossible for plaintiffs in other states to benefit from class action claims.
For decades, defense lawyers and corporations have been conducting a smear campaign against plaintiffs regarding injury lawsuits. The campaign to ridicule or spread misinformation about plaintiffs' cases was so successful that people still believe the U.S. is prone to ridiculous, frivolous lawsuits—even when injury lawsuits are on the decline. The decision to disempower plaintiffs in class action lawsuits may have been yet another major victory for large companies.
Here's the story:
California-based pharmaceutical company Bristol-Myers Squib manufactures a blood thinner called Plavix. The drug has recently come under fire for harming hundreds of patients nationwide, leading to the formation of a class action lawsuit involving 678 plaintiffs from 33 states. It's important to note that class actions like these exist because the cost of filing a single claim in each state for each plaintiff would waste the court's resources and render the potential award practically negligible. In other words, class actions are good for every party involved—including the government.
However, the Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision that the plaintiffs who are not from California are
barred from joining the class action. Why? They noted that the plaintiffs who are from other states (which make up 592 of the 678 plaintiffs, mind you) don't have enough connection to the case in California to warrant joining the claim.
Chief Justice Alito asserts that since the plaintiffs weren't prescribed Plavix in California, didn't buy it in California, didn't take it in California, and weren't injured in California, there's no reason for them to file a claim in California. In essence, 87% of the cases against Bristol-Myers Squib have just been dismissed.
In one fell swoop, the Supreme Court may have fatally injured the use of national class actions.
The Decision Creates More Problems Than It Solves
Judge Sotomayor (the only dissenting judge) observes that this decision makes it impossible to bring nationwide class action lawsuits against nationwide corporations. As Bristol-Myers Squib operates in all 50 states, she believed it was not unreasonable to allow victims in all 50 states to bring their grievances forward. She also noted that this decision doesn't actually solve any problem—and in fact, will force dozens of courts to spend resources hearing the same case in their home states.
Attorney Andrew Pincus, a Supreme Court lawyer, notes that this leaves two questions on the table:
- How does the court measure the "connection" between the facts of a claim and where it's filed?
- Are courts required to have jurisdiction over every plaintiff in a mass tort?
Only time will tell where this decision will lead. As it was, plaintiffs already had a difficult time holding corporations accountable for their actions. One of the only avenues they had—especially for smaller injuries—was a class action. By consolidating claims into a massive case, it made suing a corporation far more economically sensible for the court, for the attorney, and for the victims.
Now, that may no longer be the case.