On July 17, 2025, the Fifth Circuit adopted a test for determining whether class plaintiffs meet the Article III injury-in-fact requirement for standing, resolving an open question in the Circuit.  Wilson v. Centene Mgmt. Co., L.L.C., No. 24-50044, 2025 WL 1981287 (5th Cir. July 17, 2025).

In Wilson, the named plaintiffs purchased a healthcare insurance policy and were later unable to obtain certain healthcare services from providers listed in the policy’s in-network provider directory.  The plaintiffs alleged that the provider directories were materially inaccurate and that they were overcharged for access to providers that were not available.  The plaintiffs filed a putative class action against the insurer asserting breach of contract and other claims.  

The district court held that plaintiffs failed to plead a sufficient injury-in-fact and therefore lacked standing to bring their claim.  In making this determination, the court “faulted” the plaintiffs’ expert opinion and held that the assumptions underlying plaintiffs’ damages theory failed to support an injury-in-fact.  Because plaintiffs lacked Article III standing, the district court denied class certification.

The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded.  In doing so, the Fifth Circuit made two holdings of import to the standing inquiry at the class certification stage.  First, the court decided that a plaintiff need only establish individual standing at the class certification stage, separating the question of standing from that of class certification.  Second, the court ruled that a merits-based evaluation of expert testimony is inappropriate in the standing inquiry at class certification.

Class Certification Approach to Standing

The Fifth Circuit first held that putative class representatives need only establish individual standing at the class certification stage.  This resolved an open issue in the Fifth Circuit and further confirms a circuit split between the more forgiving “class certification approach” and the more restrictive “standing approach.”  Applying the class certification approach, the First, Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits had previously held that even at class certification, courts should evaluate only the named plaintiffs’ individual standing, without evaluating whether absent class members have standing.  (More searching inquiries, such as whether the named plaintiffs’ claims are representative of the class, are reserved for the Rule 23(a) and (b) elements.)  By contrast, the standing approach prescribes that courts may find standing at class certification only if the named plaintiff’s claims or interests are “sufficiently analogous” to the those of the class. 

In the Fifth Circuit’s view, the class certification approach appropriately distinguishes between the standing and class certification inquiries, allowing each to “serve their respective functions.”  While standing addresses the existence of a case or controversy, the class certification standard focuses on the relationship between the class representative and the class. 

Evidence Needed to Prove Standing

The Wilson plaintiffs argued that the district court had improperly found them to lack standing based on an erroneous characterization of their expert damages theory.  The Fifth Circuit held that a merits-based evaluation of expert testimony is “premature” and inappropriate for the threshold standing analysis, even if such an evaluation is otherwise “necessary at the certification stage” for addressing Rule 23 issues.  This was consistent with the court’s general view that a district court should separate out the threshold standing question from the subsequent class certification inquiry. 

***

This decision may make it easier for some class-action plaintiffs in the Fifth Circuit both to satisfy the threshold standing inquiry and to obtain class certification, although it does not purport to relax existing Rule 23 requirements relating to class-wide proof of injury.  The circuit split on the test to be applied for the threshold standing inquiry may prompt the Supreme Court to take another shot at clarifying how standing issues are to be treated in class actions.