A rare victory before the Supreme Court for consumers and the public interest
As has been discussed in prior postings here, the Supreme Court has typically decided matters before it in a way that favors corporations to the detriment of employees, civil rights, or consumer protection. In a case brought by the Attorney General of an emblematic “red” State, Mississippi v. Au Optronics Corp., the Supreme Court recently ruled that States may prosecute consumer protection, antitrust, and similar claims in State court when those claims could provide relief to a given State’s residents for harm caused by corporate conduct.
The main legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Class Action Fairness Act requires States to pursue consumer protection and similar public-interest cases in Federal court – where plaintiffs often have much more difficulty succeeding – or in State court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the unanimous opinion and, echoing the textualist approach praised most frequently by Justice Antonin Scalia, reasoned that States do not have to prosecute consumer protection and other public-interest claims in Federal court because States pursue such claims on behalf of themselves. According to the Supreme Court’s decision, the Class Action Fairness Act applies to claims of 100 or more people, so a given State’s claims necessarily fall outside the scope of the statute in question.
The Supreme Court’s surprising ruling should mean more vigorous and effective litigation of consumer protection and other public-interest claims going forward. In particular, some employee, civil rights, and consumer protection advocates have considered the Class Action Fairness Act to be ironically named because forcing employment law, civil rights, and consumer protection cases into Federal court has generally meant less favorable outcomes. Now, State courts will be able to decide claims brought by States under State law without further sideshows about whether a Federal court should be the forum for decision.
