Adam S. Zimmerman

Print
Article
Volume 89.6
The Class Appeal
Adam S. Zimmerman
Professor of Law, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles.

For discussion and comments, I’m grateful to Judge Michael Allen, Ahilan Arulanantham, Judge Margaret Bartley, Kent Barnett, Beth Burch, Aaron Caplan, Maureen Carroll, Sergio Campos, Zachary Clopton, Scott Dodson, Nora Engstrom, Jade Ford, Maggie Gardner, Myriam Gilles, Helen Hershkoff, Alexandra Lahav, Steve Landsman, Bryan Lammon, David Jaros, Anita Krishnakumar, David Marcus, Rick Marcus, David Noll, Peter Orlowicz, Elizabeth Pollman, Judith Resnik, Michael Sant’Ambrogio, Mila Sohoni, Michael E. Solimine, Bart Stichman, Adam Steinman, Jay Tidmarsh, Matthew Weiner, Lauren Willis, Michael Wishnie. This Article is dedicated to Judge Jack B. Weinstein.

For a wide variety of claims against the government, the federal courthouse doors are closed to all but those brought by powerful, organized interests. This is because hundreds of laws—colloquially known as “channeling statutes”—require disaffected groups to contest government bodies directly in appellate courts that hear cases individually. In theory, these laws promise quick, consistent, and authoritative legal decisions in appellate courts. In fact, without class actions, government bodies avoid judicial review by selectively avoiding claims brought by some of the most vulnerable people in the administrative state—from veterans and immigrants to coal miners, laborers, and the disabled. This Article proposes a novel solution: courts of appeals should hear class actions themselves.