For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices or call 949-702-5390.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

U.S. Supreme Court,
Civil Rights

May 30, 2019

Justice Thomas’ evolving pro-consumer jurisprudence

Conventional wisdom holds that there is now a solid pro-business majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. A 5-4 decision on Tuesday calls this conventional wisdom into question.

Stephen J. Newman

Partner
Steptoe & Johnson

class action defense

Univ of Chicago Law School; Chicago IL

See more...

Justice Thomas’ evolving pro-consumer jurisprudence
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is flanked by Justice Clarence Thomas, left, and Justice Stephen Breyer in Washington in 2018. On Tuesday, Justice Thomas sided with the court's liberal justices in ruling that a third-party defendant in a class action counterclaim could not remove a case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act. (New York Times News Service)

Conventional wisdom holds that there is now a solid pro-business majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, consisting of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. A 5-4 decision on Tuesday in a civil procedure case, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 2019 DJDAR 4505 (U.S. May 28, 2019), cal...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up

Related Content

Civil Procedure

Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson

Neither 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a) nor Section 1453(b) allows a third-party counterclaim defendant to remove a class-action counterclaim from state to federal court.

Contracts

AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion

State law prohibiting arbitration of particular claim outright is preempted by Federal Arbitration Act.

Constitutional Law

Spokeo Inc. v. Robins

Failure to consider both concreteness and particularization when analyzing injury-in-fact for Article III standing results in vacated judgment and remand.

Torts

Wyeth v. Levine

Inadequate warning claim not preempted by federal law because drug manufacturer may add or strengthen warnings without prior FDA approval.

Constitutional Law

Frank v. Gaos

'Spokeo' standard that 'concrete injury' is required for standing even in context of statutory violation requires remand of class action suit over Stored Communication Act violations.



By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.