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
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (Petitioner) sued Luke Davis and others (Respondents) over whether a proposed class action satisfies Article III standing and Rule 23 requirements.
The case centers on whether individuals who have not suffered an injury can be included in a federal class action.
Background and question before the Court
The key legal question is whether a class may include plaintiffs who lack an Article III injury.
The parties dispute whether the district court’s refined class definition materially changes the class composition.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings)
According to Laboratory Corporation of America (Petitioner), according to Laboratory Corporation of America (Petitioner), petitioner argues that a class action is merely a tool for aggregating claims and that any plaintiff without Article III standing cannot be part of the class.
According to Laboratory Corporation of America (Petitioner), according to Laboratory Corporation of America (Petitioner), petitioner contends that Rule 23(b)(3) predominance requires all class members to share the same injury, so including uninjured plaintiffs would swamp common issues.
According to Mr. Francisco, petitioner warns that if the class is certified and loses, the entire class will be bound by the adverse judgment.
According to Petitioner (Noel J. Francisco), according to Petitioner (Noel J. Francisco), petitioner says the district court’s order does not materially alter the class composition.
Respondents (Luke Davis and others)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Sotomayor asked if the class definition would lead to a thousand mini‑trials.
Justice Gorsuch asked whether an Article III injury is required for class certification.
According to Justice Jackson, justice Jackson questioned the timing of weeding out uninjured parties after certification.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
The Court has held that Article III does not give federal courts power to grant relief to uninjured plaintiffs, making the standing issue critical for class actions.
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.
- 52b4226d5a71c6be0e97-r1-1f75a92a9fc815bd.pdfopinion
- ab0c9783089524959c61-r1-fe7c353a4d6a787d.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 18, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.