“Class actions require real claims, real harm, and real standing. Anything less is not adjudication—it is magical thinking.”
—Saad Gul, WLF Senior Litigation Counsel

Click here to read WLF brief.

WASHINGTON, DC—Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review and reaffirm that Article III requires all plaintiffs in a proposed class action to demonstrate a concrete injury before federal courts may certify the class. In an amicus brief, WLF emphasizes that Article III confines federal courts to resolving actual controversies—not abstract grievances. Each class member, therefore, must show a personal injury to establish standing.

The case arises from a proposed class of individuals who allege that State Farm’s claims-handling practices reimbursed them for less than the fair market value of their vehicles. But most class members could not demonstrate that the system caused a reduction in payment—or any injury at all. Nonetheless, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld certification. WLF argues that the ruling contradicts Supreme Court precedent, undermines Article III, misapplies Rule 23, and offends due process.

WLF’s brief points out that federal courts exist to resolve real disputes between adverse parties—not hypothetical disagreements. Allowing uninjured plaintiffs to proceed transforms courts into policymaking bodies rather than neutral arbiters of law. WLF urges the Supreme Court to grant review, reaffirm the constitutional limits on judicial power, and ensure that all class members satisfy Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement.