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
According to Justice Ginsburg, the Justices questioned whether, after a denial of class certification, members of the dissolved class could pursue individual lawsuits.
According to Justice Sotomayor, the Justices also asked about the appropriate representative under the statute, noting it should be the party with the greatest financial interest.
According to Justice Sotomayor, further questions addressed whether the Court could treat numerous individual suits as a class despite statutes of limitations.
According to Justice Gorsuch, the Justices raised concerns about the applicability of equitable tolling and its consistency with the American Pipe precedent.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg highlighted that Rule 23 does not discuss tolling, referencing the Shady Grove case.
Justice Breyer asked a clarifying question during the argument.
- [1] 2680e3da12af5c7c8415-r1-20bb41799be72e14.pdf, p. 5
- [2] 2680e3da12af5c7c8415-r1-20bb41799be72e14.pdf, p. 8
- [3] 2680e3da12af5c7c8415-r1-20bb41799be72e14.pdf, p. 24
- [4] 2680e3da12af5c7c8415-r1-20bb41799be72e14.pdf, p. 36
- [5] 2680e3da12af5c7c8415-r1-20bb41799be72e14.pdf, p. 38
- [6] 2680e3da12af5c7c8415-r1-20bb41799be72e14.pdf, p. 46
Background and question before the Court
According to Justice Ginsburg, the central issue is whether, after class certification is denied, former class members may file individual lawsuits.
According to Justice Sotomayor, the Court could treat many individual suits as a class despite statutes of limitations.
According to Justice Gorsuch, the Court considered whether equitable tolling applies.
What each side argues
Petitioner (China Agritech, Inc.)
According to Mr. Aronson, the petitioner suggested that the Court could handle the thousand individual suits as a class, but it is not required to do so.
According to Mr. Aronson, the petitioner argued that certifying a class of absent members who have delayed asserting rights should not entitle them to tolling.
Respondent (Michael H. Resh)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument began at 11:09 a.m.
Justices asked multiple questions concerning class certification, representative selection, tolling, and equitable doctrines.
- [1] 2680e3da12af5c7c8415-r1-20bb41799be72e14.pdf, p. 2
- [2] 2680e3da12af5c7c8415-r1-20bb41799be72e14.pdf, p. 5
- [3] 2680e3da12af5c7c8415-r1-20bb41799be72e14.pdf, p. 8
- [4] 2680e3da12af5c7c8415-r1-20bb41799be72e14.pdf, p. 24
- [5] 2680e3da12af5c7c8415-r1-20bb41799be72e14.pdf, p. 36
- [6] 2680e3da12af5c7c8415-r1-20bb41799be72e14.pdf, p. 38
- [7] 2680e3da12af5c7c8415-r1-20bb41799be72e14.pdf, p. 46
What the Court decided
Why it matters
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.
- 2680e3da12af5c7c8415-r1-20bb41799be72e14.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 26, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.