On June 5, 2025, in an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court dismissed Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis as improvidently granted—despite having already granted certiorari and heard oral argument in the case on April 29, 2025. The Court did not explain its reasoning or disclose the vote breakdown. However, Justice Kavanaugh's lone, solo dissent sheds light on the possible rationale behind the dismissal and defends the importance of the question presented.
Background
As summarized in Dykema's May 2025 issue, the case arose from a putative class action against Labcorp. The class action plaintiffs alleged that the company's implementation of self-service check-in kiosks discriminated against blind individuals, who could not use the kiosks independently.
In May 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California certified a damages class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The class included all legally blind individuals in California who visited a Labcorp facility during the relevant period and were unable to access the kiosks. Labcorp challenged the certification, arguing it was overbroad because it potentially included individuals who had suffered no injury—such as blind persons who would not have used the kiosks regardless of accessibility.
In August 2022, the District Court issued a clarification, stating that the class was limited to blind individuals who were unable to use the kiosks due to their disability. However, the Court emphasized that this clarification did not "materially alter the composition" of the originally certified class.
In September 2023, the Ninth Circuit upheld the May 2022 certification, citing a footnote in prior circuit precedent that permitted damages class certification even if the class "potentially includes more than a de minimis number of uninjured class members." Labcorp then sought Supreme Court review on the question of whether a federal court may certify a class under Rule 23 that includes both injured and uninjured members
The Arguments
Labcorp's central argument was that Article III requires every class member to have standing. Because the certified class potentially included individuals who suffered no injury, Labcorp contended that the certification violated both constitutional standing requirements and Rule 23's predominance requirement.
Respondents, in turn, argued the case was moot. They asserted that the August 2022 clarification superseded the original May 2022 certification order and that Labcorp failed to appeal that clarification.
At oral argument, the Justices appeared particularly interested in the procedural question of mootness. Justice Kavanaugh's dissent suggests that concerns over mootness may have driven the Court's decision to dismiss the case.
Justice Kavanaugh's Dissent
Justice Kavanaugh's dissent takes aim at both the procedural and substantive issues.
On Mootness:
Justice Kavanaugh argued that the case was not moot because the August 2022 clarification did not materially alter or supersede the May 2022 class certification. He emphasized that the Ninth Circuit explicitly reviewed the May 2022 order and affirmed it, which would not have occurred if the case were moot.
Justice Kavanaugh further explained that Labcorp could not have appealed the August clarification separately, as Ninth Circuit precedent prohibits appeals of orders that do not materially change the original certification. Thus, the only proper appeal route was the one Labcorp pursued. In his view, this undercut the class plaintiffs' procedural objection and cleared the way for the Court to reach the merits.
On the Merits:
In an unusual move, Justice Kavanaugh turned to the substance and argued that Rule 23 permits damages class certification only when common legal and factual questions "predominate." A class composed of both injured and uninjured members fails this standard.
He also warned of significant real-world consequences: such class certifications create coercive pressure on businesses to settle rather than "bet the company" at trial. This pressure, he argued, can inflate settlement values and ultimately harm consumers, workers, and investors—through higher prices, reduced salaries, and lower returns. For these reasons, he would have resolved both the procedural and merits questions in Labcorp's favor.
Takeaways
- Rule 23 Damages Classes Remain on Uncertain Ground: Though the Ninth Circuit's decision remains intact, Justice Kavanaugh's dissent signals that at least one member of the Court currently believes that allowing damages classes with uninjured members is inconsistent with Rule 23 and Article III. Lower courts outside the Ninth Circuit may now hesitate to follow its precedent, and litigants should be wary of assuming the Ninth Circuit's approach is safe from future Supreme Court scrutiny.
- Heightened Litigation Risk for Businesses in the Ninth Circuit: Because the Court dismissed the case, the Ninth Circuit's permissive view on class composition remains binding within its jurisdiction. Businesses operating in the Ninth Circuit continue to face elevated risk of large-scale damages class actions that may include uninjured plaintiffs.
- Continued Risk to Consumers and the Economy: Justice Kavanaugh highlighted the broader economic consequences of coerced settlements in expansive class actions. As long as the Ninth Circuit's standard holds, businesses may pass increased legal costs onto consumers, employees, and investors. With no immediate clarification from the Supreme Court, the pressure to settle in such suits remains.
The Supreme Court's dismissal of Labcorp v. Davis leaves key questions about the limits of Rule 23 class certification unresolved. While the Court avoided ruling on the merits, Justice Kavanaugh's dissent offers a detailed roadmap for future litigants challenging broad class definitions—and raises the possibility that the Court may revisit this issue in a procedurally cleaner case.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
