Supreme Court Sidesteps Key Class Certification Questions in Accessibility Suit

On June 5, 2025, in a closely watched case that could have reshaped the boundaries of class action litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed its review of Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis, 605 U. S. ____ (2025) (Labcorp) without addressing the underlying legal question: Can federal courts certify a damages class under Rule 23 when it includes both injured and uninjured members?

In a brief per curiam opinion, the Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as “improvidently granted,” effectively declining to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision upholding broad class certification in a disability discrimination case against Labcorp.

At the heart of the dispute was Labcorp’s rollout of self-service check-in kiosks at its California patient service centers. According to the filings, while most patients could use the touchscreens, blind and visually impaired individuals often required assistance. Plaintiffs alleged that the kiosks violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which imposes statutory damages of at least $4,000 per violation for both injured and uninjured class members.

In 2022, the Central District of California certified a class consisting of legally blind individuals who had visited Labcorp locations and were denied “full and equal enjoyment” of services due to the kiosks’ inaccessibility.¹ Labcorp challenged certification of the class, arguing it swept in individuals who suffered no injury — such as those who preferred not to use kiosks at all. The Ninth Circuit affirmed class certification, noting that Rule 23 permits inclusion of a class even if it “potentially includes more than a de minimis number of uninjured class members.”²

The Supreme Court’s refusal to address the case drew a sharp dissent from Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who argued that the Court should have decided the question presented. “Federal courts may not certify a damages class under Rule 23 when, as here, the proposed class includes both injured and uninjured class members,” Kavanaugh wrote.³ “Rule 23 requires that common questions predominate in damages class actions. And when a damages class includes both injured and uninjured members, common questions do not predominate.”⁴

Justice Kavanaugh emphasized the broader implications, warning that certifying overbroad classes “threatens massive liability” and pressures defendants into settling even dubious claims. “[T]he consequences of overbroad and incorrectly certified damages class actions can be widespread and significant,” Kavanaugh cautioned, citing harms to consumers, investors, and employees due to increased business costs.⁵

While the Supreme Court left intact the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, its dismissal of the writ leaves a legal gray area over whether and when uninjured individuals can be included in damages classes. Until the Supreme Court chooses to revisit the issue, there will continue to be variance in lower courts on whether to permit the certification of classes that include individuals who may not have suffered concrete harm.

For now, the question remains unresolved, and the legal and business industries are left waiting for clearer guidance on the scope of class certification in federal class action litigation.

© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2025 All Rights Reserved. This Blog post is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.