The origins of modern-day class-action lawsuits can be traced to Anglo-Saxon and Norse tradition during medieval times. Often called "group litigation," these cases often involved towns, villages, and other hamlets bringing their complaints against the government, mostly the monarch. This procedure remained unchanged from the 1400s until its downfall in the mid 1800s. The economic and political landscape of England changed during the centuries as, by 1850, Parliament had enacted several statutes to deal with issues of certain organizations bringing claims to the courts, so group litigation ceased after 1850.
In 1820, class actions were implemented into American jurisprudence due to the opinion of West v. Randall, one of the earliest class actions in the United States. Two years after West, in 1842, the Supreme Court established the Federal Equity Rules, a precursor to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, In 1842, the Supreme Court amended the rules to add rule 48: a recognition of representative suits where the parties were too numerous to be conveniently brought before the court. The Rules were once again amended in 1912, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would passed twenty-six years later, being largely based on the 1912 amendments. The origins of class actions have even been recognized by courts. In 2020, in the case of Murphy v. Aaron's, Inc., the United States District Court for the District of Colorado stated, “Concomitantly, class actions portray a relic of representational litigation that has long existed in equity. ” Murphy v. Aaron's, Inc., Civil Action No. 19-cv-00601-CMA-KLM, 21 (D. Colo. Apr. 30, 2020).
West v. Randall (1820)
As previously mentioned, West was one the earliest class actions in the United States. The case concerned the estate of a Revolutionary War General, William West. West, interestingly, was involved in the first Supreme Court case in 1791, West v. Barnes. However, he passed in 1814, and there was a dispute as to who should be made a party to his estate. Justice Joseph Story is famous for his decision and usually receives credit for formulating the modern standards for class actions as he stated, "It is a general rule in equity, that all persons materially interested, either as plaintiffs or defendants in the subject matter of the bill ought to made parties to the suit, however numerous they may be."
Hansberry v. Lee (1940)
Although not a class action itself, Hansberry is an important case for class actions as the Supreme Court ruled that res judicata, or claim preclusion, does not apply to an individual whose interests who not adequately represented in a prior class action. Before Hansberry, there was a 1934 class-action case, Burke v. Kleiman, where the class had been homeowners who had signed a racially-restrictive covenant, and the suit sought to enforce the covenant against an individual who was attempting to lease his home to an African American. The Illinois state court found the covenant enforceable. Six years later, an owner who had signed the covenant attempted to sell his home to Carl Hansberry. The Illinois courts stated that because the seller had been a member of the class in Burke he was bound by the judgment. However, the Supreme Court stated that members of the class in Burke would have had conflicting interests: some homeowners would have wanted the covenant to be enforced, and some would not have wanted it to be enforced. The Court continued in stating that the interests of the class members could not have been adequately represented and that binding the defendants (the seller and Hansberry) to a judgment in a case in which they were not adequately represented would violate their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Walmart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (2011)
In 2000, Betty Dukes, a Walmart employee in California, claimed sex discrimination as she had been employed for six years and had positive performance reviews but was denied the training she needed to advance to a higher salaried position. In 2001, the lawsuit began in the US District Court in San Francisco. The plaintiffs sought to represent 1.6 million women, including women who were currently working or who had previously worked in a Walmart store since December 26, 1998. The District Court certified the class under Rule 23(b)(2), and the Court of Appeals affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that the class should not have been certified under Rule 23(a)(2), saying the plaintiffs did not have enough in common to constitute a class.
Justice Joseph Story, delivered the lead opinion of West v. Randall, considered one of the earliest class actions in United States' history. The case was one of the first to allow an individual to sue on the behalf of a larger group. However, Story did not necessarily endorse class actions, because he "could not conceive of a modern function or a coherent theory for representative litigation." Later, in 1853, the Court adopted his analysis in Smith v. Swormtedt and allowed a group of preachers to bring a representative suit.
Justice Scalia delivered the lead opinion of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes in 2011. The Court ruled 5–4 that the sexual discrimination case could not proceed as any kind of class action suit because the action did not satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2). Many criticized Scalia's opinion, believing that the decision makes it incredibly difficult to certify a class.
Writing for the concurring opinion in Walmart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, Justice Ginsburg also agreed the class should not have been certified. However, she stated that she would have reserved the plaintiff's Rule 23(b)(3) certification for remand as the plaintiffs argued they should receive (b)(3) certification if their (b)(2) certification fails. She disagreed with the majority in "disqualifying the class at the starting gate" as she believed the Court merged Rule 23(a)(2) with (b)(3).