Justices dismiss dispute over class-certification standards 

It was no surprise that the justices decided on Thursday to dismiss Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis. They granted review to decide whether a federal court can certify a class action that includes claimants who have not suffered any real injury. At the oral argument, it became pretty clear that the case in fact does not present that question.

The problem is that the district court at different points approved two different class definitions. The case involves a challenge by individuals who are blind to Labcorp’s installation of automated check-in kiosks. At one point, the district court approved a class definition that would include anyone who entered a Labcorp facility – even if they did not know of or have interest in the kiosk. That definition well might include people not injured by the kiosks. Earlier, though, the court had approved a class that excluded all who did not know about or did not want to use the kiosk, on the theory that they were not actually injured. Because Labcorp appealed only the more limited class definition, it is hard to see how the justices could offer any decisive view on the propriety of the broader definition.

In its one-sentence decision on Thursday, the justices dismissed the case “as improvidently granted.” Essentially, that is an admission that the justices erred in setting the case for briefing and argument. Typically it requires the vote of six of the nine justices, and usually the result appears without any vote count or notation of dissent. In this case, though, Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented from the decision to dismiss the case, explaining that he would have reached the question on which the justices granted review and rejected the broad class that the trial court at one point approved.