Article III standing
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Luke Davis
Date: March 12, 2025
Issue: Whether a federal court may certify a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.
Case Summary: ABA filed a coalition amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a Ninth Circuit decision that affirmed class certification even though some class members were uninjured.
Plaintiffs are visually impaired individuals who claim they were denied equal access to touchscreen check-in kiosks at Labcorp facilities. Plaintiffs moved to certify a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3), but Labcorp opposed, arguing plaintiffs could not show Article III standing for each class member. Labcorp argued the plaintiffs failed to show that every class member personally tried to use the kiosks and either could not use them or felt discouraged from doing so. Nonetheless, the district court certified the damages class.
On interlocutory appeal, Labcorp argued that the district court should not have certified the class because it could not show that all putative class members had suffered an Article III injury. The Ninth Circuit affirmed class certification, ruling that it did not matter “that some potential class members may not have been injured.” According to the Ninth Circuit, if the named plaintiff suffered an individual Article III injury, that was sufficient for class certification. On Jan. 24, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Labcorp’s certiorari petition.
ABA argued that Article III, the Rules Enabling Act, and Rule 23 prohibit certifying classes that include uninjured individuals. ABA stressed that the Court has repeatedly affirmed that a concrete injury is essential to sue in federal court, emphasizing TransUnion’s mandate “No concrete harm, no standing.” The Ninth Circuit’s ruling flouts Article III and the Rules Enabling Act, which bars procedural rules from expanding substantive rights. Granting class membership to individuals who lack standing unlawfully expands their rights and undermines the requirement for courts to conduct a “rigorous analysis” at the class certification stage to ensure that individual issues, like distinguishing injured from uninjured members, do not predominate.
ABA also argued the Ninth Circuit’s standard is harmful and unworkable. The brief explained that courts often certify classes while assuming they can deal with uninjured members later, and courts rarely allow defendants to obtain discovery from thousands — or even millions — of absent class members. This leads to costly, unfair outcomes, particularly for businesses in heavily regulated industries, where technical statutory violations that cause no real harm can give rise to massive liability. ABA emphasized this risk often pressures defendants into expensive settlements, even where they might have won if courts had addressed the Article III issue during class certification.
ABA urged the Court to reaffirm that Article III standing must be addressed at the certification stage — not after trial — and to clarify that TransUnion applies to all phases of class litigation. Certifying classes that include uninjured members violates federal law and pressures defendants into unjust settlements, making early judicial scrutiny essential to fairness and efficiency.
Bottom Line: Labcorp’s reply brief is due April 21, 2025
Documents: Brief
