An article in the
New York Times by Sheryl Gay Stolberg reports on a class action bill that was
headed for a vote in the Senate today.
According to the
report, Pres. Bush's legislative agenda includes a tort law reform measure
supported heavily by business groups that would allow most class-action suits
with at least 100 plaintiffs, where at least $5 million is at stake, to be
removed from state courts and relocated in federal courts, which supporters and
legal experts apparently believe offer a more favorable climate to
corporations. The bill is said to have an exception for suits where at
least 2/3 of the plaintiffs are from the same state; in these cases the state
courts could retain jurisdiction.
Business groups and
the Republican backers of the measure argue, according to the report, "that
businesses are overburdened with legal fees from class-action suits that often
result in little more than coupons for consumers and huge fees for
lawyers."
Pres. Bush is
reported to have said, "Class action and mass tort cases that reach across
state lines should be tried in the federal court, so the lawyers cannot shop
around looking for a favorite judge."
I'd appreciate a
little guidance.
My first question
is: What is the Congressional power that authorizes Congress to 'usurp'
the right of a state to hear and decide lawsuits brought by aggrieved
citizens, assuming the state has lawful jurisdiction in the first
place?"
Is it the Commerce
Power, since the company sued is engaged in interstate commerce, otherwise there
wouldn't be plaintiffs residing in multiple states? Is that enough for
Congress to regulate class-action lawsuits under the commerce clause? I'm
assuming that class-action lawsuits against large corporations engaged in
interstate commerce are an outgrowth of or incident to interstate commerce for
which it may be 'necessary and proper' for Congress to regulate the lawsuits on
the theory this is a national problem.
Or is this bill
simply the exercise by Congress of a subset of ordinary Art. III, Sec. 2, Cl. 1
Diversity of Citizenship jurisdiction permitting removal to federal court?
Is this bill an amendment to the removal statute?
If the bill is not
based on diversity but the commerce power, isn't the dignity of the state
implicated, such that the Supreme Court might have reason to question the
alleged 'usurpation' of state power under the new states' rights cases since
Lopez?
Thank you very
much.
Bob
Sheridan
SFLS
