If the statute purports to prescribe the substantive rule, then presumably it would require substantive Constitutional authorization (though I'm not certain; am I correct in remembering dimly that Congressional power to presecribe admiralty law was rooted in the grant of admiralty jurisdiciton to the federal courts?). In any event, it seems that even post-Lopez it is not a hard case to make that nearly all class actions of this size and geographical spread involve commerce, and that taken in the aggregate they may be reasoonably perceived by Congress as having a substantial impact on commerce.
I'm not arguing in favor of the merits, of course, just that from the description the bill appears to be constitutional.
Rich Friedman
University of Michigan Law School
At 08:13 PM 10/22/03 -0700, you wrote:
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
