As I read it, all 9 justices agreed that the case could not legally proceed as a class action suit.
A majority of 5 justices agreed that the reason that it could not proceed is because of the large number of plaintiffs, and their differing situations; not enough commonality between the plaintiff's situations to qualify as a class action suit.
My question is, if the 4 justices in the minority agreed that the case could not proceed, yet they disagreed with the reasoning of the majority, what reasoning did they cite for not allowing the case to proceed as a class action?
As I read it, all 9 justices agreed that the case could not legally proceed as a class action suit.
A majority of 5 justices agreed that the reason that it could not proceed is because of the large number of plaintiffs, and their differing situations; not enough commonality between the plaintiff's situations to qualify as a class action suit.
My question is, if the 4 justices in the minority agreed that the case could not proceed, yet they disagreed with the reasoning of the majority, what reasoning did they cite for not allowing the case to proceed as a class action?
Bumping my own question to the daytime crowd.
To oversimplify a complex issue, there are two kinds of class actions. One requires only a common issue of law or fact, but doesn't apply to suits for money damages, only to suits seeking an injunction or a declaratory judgment. All 9 justices agreed that this case couldn't be certified under that rule (as the lower courts had permitted), because the plaintiffs were seeking backpay. (They tried to argue that backpay isn't money damages, but no justice accepted that argument).
There is a second kind of class action, in which the plaintiffs seek money damages, which also requires a common question of law or fact, but also requires several additional findings (that the class representatives are typical of the entire class; that the issues common to the whole class predominate over the issues affecting individual members; etc.). A 5-4 majority said that neither kind of class action could be certified here, because there were no common questions of law or fact. The minority said that the plaintiffs should be given a chance to try and show that they could satisfy the requirements of the second kind of class action.