The public interest class action

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Public interest lawyers often bring large-scale cases against government defendants for injunctive relief as class actions. Until recently, their class certification motions routinely succeeded, enabling plaintiffs to obtain sweeping remedies that have required fundamental reforms to government policies and practices. In recent years, however, the procedural law regulating the public interest class action has changed dramatically, with recurring doctrinal problems splitting the federal courts. Should a nascent trend against class certification continue, class action doctrine will soon present a formidable obstacle-possibly a barrier-to the successful prosecution of a sort of litigation that has produced innumerable changes to prisons, foster care systems, and other government agencies and services over the last fifty years. Any path out of the present confusion must address a basic but neglected question: why do large-scale public interest cases so regularly proceed as class actions? The answer involves an underappreciated interaction between the law of class actions and other doctrines devised to limit standing and the scope of remedies. Class action procedure enables public interest plaintiffs to vindicate policies in the substantive law consistent with broad, systemic remedies without asking courts to usurp power from other branches or adjudicate ineptly. Without class certification, these policies would lie dormant because the other doctrines would unnecessarily derail litigation. This counterweight function can generate responses to the doctrinal problems that courts have struggled to answer in this new era for the public interest class action. If class action procedure evolves in a manner that is consistent with its function, large-scale public interest litigation will remain a viable means for the achievement of structural reform.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)777-833
Number of pages57
JournalGeorgetown Law Journal
Volume104
Issue number4
StatePublished - 2016

Fingerprint

public interest
remedies
certification
doctrine
procedural law
structural reform
Law
prosecution
government agency
lawyer
government policy
correctional institution
reform
present
trend
interaction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law

Cite this

The public interest class action. / Marcus, David W.

In: Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 104, No. 4, 2016, p. 777-833.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Marcus, David W. / The public interest class action. In: Georgetown Law Journal. 2016 ; Vol. 104, No. 4. pp. 777-833.
@article{fde42f00289746358216ccd46dbadde3,
title = "The public interest class action",
abstract = "Public interest lawyers often bring large-scale cases against government defendants for injunctive relief as class actions. Until recently, their class certification motions routinely succeeded, enabling plaintiffs to obtain sweeping remedies that have required fundamental reforms to government policies and practices. In recent years, however, the procedural law regulating the public interest class action has changed dramatically, with recurring doctrinal problems splitting the federal courts. Should a nascent trend against class certification continue, class action doctrine will soon present a formidable obstacle-possibly a barrier-to the successful prosecution of a sort of litigation that has produced innumerable changes to prisons, foster care systems, and other government agencies and services over the last fifty years. Any path out of the present confusion must address a basic but neglected question: why do large-scale public interest cases so regularly proceed as class actions? The answer involves an underappreciated interaction between the law of class actions and other doctrines devised to limit standing and the scope of remedies. Class action procedure enables public interest plaintiffs to vindicate policies in the substantive law consistent with broad, systemic remedies without asking courts to usurp power from other branches or adjudicate ineptly. Without class certification, these policies would lie dormant because the other doctrines would unnecessarily derail litigation. This counterweight function can generate responses to the doctrinal problems that courts have struggled to answer in this new era for the public interest class action. If class action procedure evolves in a manner that is consistent with its function, large-scale public interest litigation will remain a viable means for the achievement of structural reform.",
author = "Marcus, {David W}",
year = "2016",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "104",
pages = "777--833",
journal = "Georgetown Law Journal",
issn = "0016-8092",
publisher = "Georgetown University Law Center",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The public interest class action

AU - Marcus, David W

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Public interest lawyers often bring large-scale cases against government defendants for injunctive relief as class actions. Until recently, their class certification motions routinely succeeded, enabling plaintiffs to obtain sweeping remedies that have required fundamental reforms to government policies and practices. In recent years, however, the procedural law regulating the public interest class action has changed dramatically, with recurring doctrinal problems splitting the federal courts. Should a nascent trend against class certification continue, class action doctrine will soon present a formidable obstacle-possibly a barrier-to the successful prosecution of a sort of litigation that has produced innumerable changes to prisons, foster care systems, and other government agencies and services over the last fifty years. Any path out of the present confusion must address a basic but neglected question: why do large-scale public interest cases so regularly proceed as class actions? The answer involves an underappreciated interaction between the law of class actions and other doctrines devised to limit standing and the scope of remedies. Class action procedure enables public interest plaintiffs to vindicate policies in the substantive law consistent with broad, systemic remedies without asking courts to usurp power from other branches or adjudicate ineptly. Without class certification, these policies would lie dormant because the other doctrines would unnecessarily derail litigation. This counterweight function can generate responses to the doctrinal problems that courts have struggled to answer in this new era for the public interest class action. If class action procedure evolves in a manner that is consistent with its function, large-scale public interest litigation will remain a viable means for the achievement of structural reform.

AB - Public interest lawyers often bring large-scale cases against government defendants for injunctive relief as class actions. Until recently, their class certification motions routinely succeeded, enabling plaintiffs to obtain sweeping remedies that have required fundamental reforms to government policies and practices. In recent years, however, the procedural law regulating the public interest class action has changed dramatically, with recurring doctrinal problems splitting the federal courts. Should a nascent trend against class certification continue, class action doctrine will soon present a formidable obstacle-possibly a barrier-to the successful prosecution of a sort of litigation that has produced innumerable changes to prisons, foster care systems, and other government agencies and services over the last fifty years. Any path out of the present confusion must address a basic but neglected question: why do large-scale public interest cases so regularly proceed as class actions? The answer involves an underappreciated interaction between the law of class actions and other doctrines devised to limit standing and the scope of remedies. Class action procedure enables public interest plaintiffs to vindicate policies in the substantive law consistent with broad, systemic remedies without asking courts to usurp power from other branches or adjudicate ineptly. Without class certification, these policies would lie dormant because the other doctrines would unnecessarily derail litigation. This counterweight function can generate responses to the doctrinal problems that courts have struggled to answer in this new era for the public interest class action. If class action procedure evolves in a manner that is consistent with its function, large-scale public interest litigation will remain a viable means for the achievement of structural reform.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84970948042&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84970948042&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84970948042

VL - 104

SP - 777

EP - 833

JO - Georgetown Law Journal

JF - Georgetown Law Journal

SN - 0016-8092

IS - 4

ER -