Supreme Court ruling a major boost for plaintiffs seeking class action relief

In June, there was a setback for advocates seeking to overturn President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled that universal injunctions, which allow a single district court to halt a government policy nationwide, are generally not allowed. This decision affected a variety of plaintiffs challenging executive branch actions.

However, the Supreme Court did indicate an alternative route for obtaining nationwide relief, which is through class action lawsuits. This ruling, coupled with another lesser-known emergency case from the prior term known as A.A.R.P. v. Trump, could be a game-changer for those opposing the president’s policies. William B. Rubenstein ’86, a law professor at Harvard Law School, sees class action lawsuits as a potent tool to challenge federal policies following these developments.

The A.A.R.P. v. Trump case involved a lawsuit against the Trump administration’s attempt to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members. It was initially filed as a class action, although not officially certified as one. Despite this, the Supreme Court granted temporary relief to the entire class, preventing the policy’s implementation while the case was ongoing. The crucial point was that the court allowed this relief even without class certification, citing a treatise authored by Rubenstein.

According to Rubenstein, this ruling holds significant implications for plaintiffs challenging Trump administration policies. It streamlines the process by eliminating the need to go through separate certification proceedings for temporary relief. Additionally, the Supreme Court ruling demonstrated a preference for class action lawsuits over universal injunctions in addressing federal policies’ constitutionality.

Class action lawsuits work by allowing designated individuals to represent a larger group of people who have been similarly harmed. While typically associated with corporate accountability, they have long been used in civil rights cases, such as Brown v. Board of Education. Such lawsuits provide a means for expediting emergency relief while awaiting the formal class certification process to address urgent situations like deportation threats.

The seminal change to class actions came in 1966 when they became opt-out rather than opt-in. This change significantly improved the efficacy of these lawsuits as a legal strategy. Despite some reservations, particularly among dissenting justices like Samuel Alito, the precedent set by A.A.R.P. v. Trump opens the door for courts to offer temporary relief to entire classes early in the legal process.

Rubenstein believes the recent rulings highlight a shift towards favoring class action lawsuits as an essential legal tool for challenging federal policies effectively. This development underscores the importance of understanding the legal nuances and evolving landscape of representative litigation in the contemporary legal system.