Article III standing
Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Davis
Date: June 5, 2025
Issue: Can a federal court certify a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) when some proposed class members lack an Article III injury?
Case Summary: In an 8-1 per curiam decision, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed Labcorp’s appeal as “improvidently granted,” effectively letting stand the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that upheld class certification despite including uninjured members.
Plaintiffs are visually impaired individuals claiming 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. Specifically, Labcorp argued 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 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.
In a 3-0 decision, a Ninth Circuit panel affirmed class certification, holding that the named plaintiff’s Article III injury sufficed, even if some class members were uninjured. The panel found that Julian Vargas was denied effective communication and equal access to LabCorp’s services, establishing a concrete injury. The panel also ruled the class satisfied Rule 23, rejecting LabCorp’s claims about individualized harm and manageability, and noting that administrative methods could address any issues in identifying blind class members. Finally, the panel concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the nationwide class based on its determination that a nationwide injunction could provide relief to all members.
As a result, Labcorp petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review. On Jan. 24, 2025, the Court granted Labcorp’s petition but limited review to whether a federal court may certify a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury. ABA filed a coalition amicus brief urging the Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit’s decision. ABA argued that Article III, the Rules Enabling Act, and Rule 23 forbid certifying classes containing people who have not been injured, and the Ninth Circuit’s standard is harmful and unworkable.
On June 5, 2025, the Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as “improvidently granted,” offering no further explanation. In dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued the Court likely dismissed the case to avoid addressing the Plaintiffs’ mootness argument. Plaintiffs claimed the case was moot because Labcorp had appealed the wrong class-certification order. Kavanaugh rejected this argument as insubstantial and explained he would have addressed the core issue. On that issue, he stated that federal courts should not certify a damages class that includes both injured and uninjured members.
Bottom Line: Courts routinely certify classes without addressing uninjured members and rarely let defendants seek discovery from thousands of absent class members. This practice creates costly, unfair outcomes for businesses in heavily regulated industries, such as banks, by turning harmless technical violations into massive liability.
Document: Opinion
