Supreme Court

In Trump v. Casa, Inc., et al., No. 24A884, 606 U.S. ___ (2025), the Supreme Court ruled that lower courts lack authority to issue so-called “universal” (or “nationwide”) injunctions that extend beyond the case or controversy presented by the specific parties who are before them. In so doing, the Court will propel many litigants challenging federal statutes and policies to opt for Rule 23(b)(2) class actions in order to secure broad injunctive relief.Continue Reading End of Universal Injunctions, Re-Emergence of Rule 23(b)(2) Class Actions

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis presented a question central to modern class action litigation: whether class certification is permissible under Rule 23(b)(3) when some members of the putative class are uninjured. We previously highlighted the Supreme Court’s decision to hear argument in the case, which had the potential to resolve a widening circuit split on this issue—some courts have held that uninjured class members preclude certification entirely, others ask whether uninjured class members can be identified and excluded without requiring predominance-defeating “mini-trials,” and others (incorrectly, in our view) defer the inquiry until later stages of the case unless a “great many” of the class members are uninjured.  Despite its clear interest in resolving this split, the Supreme Court ultimately determined that Laboratory Corporation had too many procedural quirks to reach the question presented, holding in an 8-1 decision that certiorari was “improvidently granted” and dismissing the appeal.Continue Reading Supreme Court Delays Resolution of Uninjured Class Member Debate

On April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cunningham v. Cornell University, No. 23-1007, 604 U.S. ___ (2025), a case addressing the pleading standard for prohibited-transaction claims under § 406(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).  Section 406(a) proscribes certain transactions between plans and “parties in interest” absent a statutory exemption enumerated under ERISA § 408.  The core question on appeal was whether plaintiffs must allege, as an element of a prohibited-transaction claim under § 406(a), that an exemption under § 408 does not render the challenged transaction lawful.

In a decision that is expected to have wide-ranging implications, the Court held that exemptions under § 408 provide affirmative defenses to liability under § 406(a).  Consequently, plaintiffs need not allege that any of the exemptions set forth in § 408 are unavailable to state a plausible claim for relief.  Rather, the burden falls on plan fiduciary defendants to plead and prove that an exemption under § 408 nullifies a plaintiff’s claim.Continue Reading A Closer Look:  Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Pleading Standard for Prohibited-Transaction Claims under ERISA § 406(a)

In Lackey v. Stinnie, the Supreme Court has clarified who qualifies as a “prevailing party” eligible for attorneys’ fees under certain statutes.  The decision carries significant implications for the availability of attorneys’ fees in class action cases where defendants are able to moot claims before a court enters a final judgment.   

At issue in Lackey was whether plaintiffs could obtain attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988(b), which allows the “prevailing party” to recover attorneys’ fees in certain civil rights cases.  Plaintiffs secured a preliminary injunction but were not able to obtain any further relief (including a final judgment) because the government voluntarily ceased the challenged conduct.  In a 7-2 opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff did not qualify as a “prevailing party.”Continue Reading No Final Judgment, No Attorneys’ Fees: The Supreme Court Clarifies the Meaning of “Prevailing Party” in Lackey v. Stinnie

On January 24, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis to address a long-unsettled issue central to class-action litigation: “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.”Continue Reading Supreme Court to Decide If Presence of Uninjured Class Members Defeats Class Certification

The Supreme Court recently held in Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger that even if a defendant properly removes a complaint from state to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s post-removal amendment of the complaint to eliminate the basis for federal question jurisdiction will also deprive the…

Continue Reading Supreme Court Holds That Post-Removal Amendment of Complaint Can Destroy Federal Jurisdiction

In the first court decision addressing National Bank Act preemption since the Supreme Court clarified the standard in Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., 144 S. Ct. 1290 (2024), the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that the Act does not preempt a California state law requiring banks to pay interest on funds held in their customers’ escrow accounts.  See Kivett v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 2024 WL 3901188 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2024).Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Addresses National Bank Act Preemption after Supreme Court Decision

Last week, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in NVIDIA Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB to address two important questions on the standard for pleading securities fraud claims under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”): (1) whether plaintiffs seeking to allege scienter under the PSLRA based on allegations about internal company documents must plead with particularity the contents of those documents, and (2) whether plaintiffs can satisfy the PSLRA’s falsity requirement by relying on an expert opinion to substitute for particularized allegations of fact.Continue Reading Supreme Court to Review Securities Pleading Standard