2001 Supreme Court term

ROBERT J. DEVLIN v. ROBERT A. SCARDELLETTI, ET AL.

Dockets 01-417Argued
AI-generated independent summary

This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.

In brief

Overview

Guide pending. Verified case metadata and available source documents are shown below while a supported explanation is prepared.

Background and question before the Court

Thomas C. Goldstein represented the petitioner.

According to Thomas C. Goldstein, the district court confirmed a class‑action settlement that substantially reduced the petitioner's individual pension, and the Fourth Circuit held that the petitioner may not appeal the district court's decision.

What each side argues

Petitioner (Robert J. Devlin)

According to Thomas C. Goldstein, the petitioner argues that, as a Rule 23 class member bound by the district court’s judgment, he has the right to appeal that judgment.

Respondents (Robert A. Scardelletti)

The respondents contend that only parties to a lawsuit, or those who properly become parties, may appeal an adverse judgment.

The respondents argue that in multiparty litigation the courts require consolidation, allowing only one appellant’s brief and requiring the parties to act together.

According to United States (Solicitor General), the United States, represented by the Solicitor General, filed an amicus brief supporting the respondents.

What happened at oral argument

Justice Souter asked: “Under your theory, any objector can appeal, I take it?”

Justice Kennedy asked: “Will your rule hold for certiorari petitions as well, so if, let's say, a named class member takes an appeal, but then the class petitions for certiorari, that any non‑named class member can petition for certiorari?”

A Justice asked: “You disagree with anything the government said in its brief about the objector has a right to intervene, he can do so even after judgment within the time allowed?”

What the Court decided

Pending This section will be added when the relevant Court material is available.

Why it matters

Source-limited The available primary sources do not support a complete explanation yet.

Terms to know

No glossary terms are available for this guide.

Primary sources

Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.

  • ee6aba71e469a1257e0b-r1-99c3eb53aa2fe3d8.pdforal argument transcript

Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.