USA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Amir Nassihi, Michael Mallow, Rachel Straus and Christopher Wray, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP
Standing at the Crossroads of Article III in Class Actions In TransUnion LLC v Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021), the Supreme Court held that in a Rule 23 class action, “every class member must have Article III standing in order to recover individual damages” , emphasising that “Article III does not give federal courts the power to order relief to any uninjured plaintiff, class action or not” . However, the Supreme Court left the following critical question unanswered: must every absent class member demonstrate standing before class certification or only after, to recover damages? The Supreme Court was expected to shed some light on this question in its decision in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v Davis (the “Lab Corp Case” ) but ultimately, on 5 June 2025, the writ of certiorari was dismissed as improvi - dently granted due to a defect in the notice of appeal. The debate over Article III standing in class actions therefore remains far from settled; nor, for that matter, would Laboratory Corpora - tion of America Holdings have resolved related issues, such as whether an “overpayment” the- Article III standing requires claimants to show: • concrete, particular and actual or imminent injury; • causation linking the injury to the defendant’s conduct; and • redressability, meaning the injury is likely to be remedied by judicial relief. These elements were considered to form an “irreducible constitutional minimum” that cannot be bypassed, regardless of the case’s procedur - al stage in the TransUnion LLC v Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021). The injury-in-fact requirement ory can replace Article III standing. Article III Standing in Class Actions
is especially challenging in class actions, where the courts have consistently held that possible future injury is insufficient. Claimants must show present harm or an imminent threat of harm. Some courts initially accepted standing based solely on the named claimants’ injuries, even if absent class members lacked standing. This approach has been rejected post-TransUnion LLC v Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021), which clari - fied that courts lack authority to grant relief to uninjured claimants, class members or not. Circuit Splits on Standing at Certification Since the decision in TransUnion LLC v Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021), the question of whether every class member must demonstrate stand - ing before a court certifies a class has split the circuit courts. The strict “all members must have standing” approach The Second, Fourth and Eighth Circuits require that all class members possess Article III stand - ing at certification. For example, the Fourth Cir - cuit in Alig v Rocket Mortgage, 126 F.4th 965, 968 (4th Cir. 23 January 2025), held that every class member must prove a concrete injury caused by the conduct challenged. The Second Circuit in Denney v Deutsche Bank AG, 443 F.3d 253, 264 (2d Cir. 2006) and the Eighth Circuit in Johannessohn v Polaris Indus - tries, 9 F.4th 981, 988 & n.3 (8th Cir. 2021), ech - oed this view, refusing certification if uninjured members are included. The “de minimis” exception The D.C. and First Circuits allow certification despite a small percentage of uninjured mem - bers and set thresholds at approximately around 5% and 10%. This approach balances consti -
319 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook