The United States Supreme Court has unexpectedly declined to rule on a pivotal legal question that could have fundamentally reshaped the landscape of class action litigation across the country. On June 5, 2025, the Court issued a per curiam decision in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis, No. 24-304, dismissing the writ of certiorari as "improvidently granted." This procedural move, often referred to by the legal community as a "DIG," effectively vacates the Court’s previous commitment to hear the case and leaves the underlying legal conflict regarding uninjured class members unresolved. The decision represents a significant missed opportunity for employers and corporate defendants who had hoped the high court would establish a nationwide standard prohibiting the certification of damages classes that include individuals who have suffered no actual harm.
The central issue at the heart of the Labcorp case was whether a federal court may certify a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when a portion of the proposed class lacks Article III standing—meaning they did not suffer a concrete injury. This question has created a deep divide among federal appellate courts, leading to inconsistent legal environments for businesses operating in different regions of the United States. While the Supreme Court’s dismissal leaves the status quo in place, the lone dissent from Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggests that the debate is far from over and that the economic stakes for American industry remain extraordinarily high.
Background of the Dispute: Kiosks and Accessibility
The litigation began when Luke Davis and Julian Vargas, both of whom are legally blind, filed a class action lawsuit against Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (Labcorp). The plaintiffs alleged that Labcorp’s implementation of on-site, self-service touchscreen kiosks at its patient service centers violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). These kiosks were designed to streamline the check-in process for patients, but they were not equipped with screen-reading technology or tactile interfaces, making them inaccessible to blind or visually impaired individuals without third-party assistance.
Labcorp argued that it provided reasonable accommodations by ensuring that every patient service center had at least one staff member available at a front desk to assist patients with the check-in process using the same backend technology. However, the plaintiffs contended that the mere presence of the inaccessible kiosks constituted a discriminatory barrier.
The case took on massive financial dimensions because it included claims under the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. Under California law, any violation of the federal ADA is considered a per se violation of the Unruh Act, which allows plaintiffs to recover statutory damages of $4,000 per offense. Because Labcorp operates extensively in California, the potential class size swelled to more than 100,000 individuals.
The Predominance Conflict and Class Certification
The legal battle intensified when the district court certified a class of blind individuals who had visited Labcorp locations, despite evidence suggesting that many members of the class had not actually attempted to use the kiosks or had preferred to use the front desk assistance regardless of the kiosks’ accessibility. Labcorp argued that including these "uninjured" members in the class violated Rule 23(b)(3), which requires that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members."
Labcorp’s position was that if a court must conduct individualized inquiries to determine which class members were actually harmed and which were not, then common questions do not predominate, and the class should not be certified. The district court, however, moved forward with certification, a decision that was later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit’s stance aligned with its historically more lenient approach toward class certification, even when classes are "overinclusive" of uninjured members at the certification stage.
Chronology of the Case
The journey of Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis through the judicial system highlights the volatility of class action standards:
- Initial Filing: Davis and Vargas filed the suit in a California federal court, leveraging both the ADA and the Unruh Act.
- District Court Certification: The court certified a class potentially exceeding 100,000 members. Labcorp faced potential exposure of nearly $500 million in statutory damages per year.
- Ninth Circuit Appeal: Labcorp sought an interlocutory appeal. During this time, the district court issued a "clarifying" order regarding the class definition, which the Ninth Circuit cited when it eventually affirmed the certification.
- Petition for Certiorari: Labcorp appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling created a "circuit split" and ignored the standing requirements established in previous Supreme Court precedents.
- Grant of Certiorari: The Supreme Court initially agreed to hear the case, signaling a potential landmark ruling on Article III standing and Rule 23.
- The Dismissal (June 5, 2025): The Court abruptly dismissed the case as "improvidently granted" without providing a detailed explanation in its majority per curiam order.
Justice Kavanaugh’s Dissenting Opinion
Justice Brett Kavanaugh was the sole member of the Court to issue a formal dissent against the dismissal. In a sharp critique, Kavanaugh argued that the Court should have addressed the merits of the case rather than retreating behind a procedural dismissal. He dismissed the plaintiffs’ arguments that the case was moot or procedurally flawed as "insubstantial," suggesting that his colleagues may simply have wanted to avoid the complexities of the specific record in this case.
Kavanaugh’s dissent provided a roadmap for how he, and potentially other conservative justices, view the issue of uninjured class members. He characterized the case as "straightforward," noting that if a class includes members who have not been injured, they cannot share a "common" injury with those who have. "Common questions do not predominate in a class consisting of both injured and uninjured members," Kavanaugh wrote.
He also highlighted the United States government’s involvement as amicus curiae, noting that the Solicitor General’s office had agreed that uninjured individuals should not be part of a certified damages class. Kavanaugh’s primary concern appeared to be the "real-world consequences" of allowing overinflated classes to proceed to trial.
Economic Implications and Data on Class Litigation
The stakes mentioned in Kavanaugh’s dissent are backed by significant data regarding the growth of class action litigation. According to recent legal industry reports, including data from Seyfarth Shaw LLP, ADA Title III federal lawsuit filings have reached record highs in recent years. In 2023 and 2024, filings hovered around 10,000 annually, with California and New York serving as the primary hubs for these actions.
The financial pressure on defendants is immense. In the Labcorp case, the potential liability of $500 million annually was not based on actual compensatory damages—such as medical costs or lost wages—but on statutory penalties designed to punish technical non-compliance. When a class is certified with tens of thousands of uninjured members, the "settlement value" of the case skyrockets.
Kavanaugh argued that these "massive liability" threats force companies into "costly settlements" even when they have strong defenses. These costs, he noted, are rarely absorbed by the corporations themselves but are instead passed on to:
- Consumers: Through higher prices for goods and services.
- Workers: Through stagnating wages or reduced hiring.
- Investors: Including retirement and pension account holders who see diminished returns.
The Lingering Circuit Split
By dismissing the Labcorp case, the Supreme Court has left a fractured legal landscape. Currently, federal circuits are divided on how to handle uninjured members at the class certification stage:
- The Strict Approach: Some circuits, such as the Second and Eleventh, have moved toward requiring that plaintiffs prove all class members have standing, or at least provide a mechanism to weed out uninjured members, before a class can be certified under Rule 23(b)(3).
- The Lenient Approach: The Ninth Circuit and others have held that as long as the named plaintiffs have standing, the presence of uninjured members in the class is an issue that can be dealt with at the damages phase, rather than a bar to certification itself.
This split creates a "forum shopping" incentive, where plaintiffs’ attorneys are more likely to file nationwide class actions in jurisdictions like the Ninth Circuit to take advantage of more permissive certification standards.
Analysis: What This Means for Employers and Defendants
In the immediate term, the Supreme Court’s decision is a setback for the defense bar. It denies employers a clear, bright-line rule that could have been used to strike down overbroad class definitions early in the litigation process. However, the dismissal is not a ruling on the merits in favor of the plaintiffs. It simply means the Court has chosen not to use the Labcorp case as its vehicle for deciding this issue.
Defense strategies will likely continue to focus on the "predominance" requirement. Even without a definitive SCOTUS ruling, defendants can argue that the need for individualized "mini-trials" to determine who among the 100,000 class members actually suffered a concrete injury makes class treatment unmanageable and inappropriate.
Furthermore, the 2021 Supreme Court decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez remains the law of the land. In that case, the Court held that "every class member must have Article III standing to recover individual damages." The unresolved question after TransUnion is when that standing must be proven—at the certification stage or only at the final judgment stage.
Future Outlook
The legal community expects this issue to return to the Supreme Court within the next two to three terms. As Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent suggests, there is an appetite among at least some of the justices to rein in "overinflated" classes. For now, businesses must continue to navigate a patchwork of standards, particularly in high-risk jurisdictions like California, where statutory damages and lenient certification rules combine to create significant litigation exposure.
Until the Supreme Court provides a definitive answer, the battle over uninjured class members will remain one of the most hotly contested frontiers in American civil procedure, with hundreds of millions of dollars hanging in the balance of how a "common injury" is defined.
