The Ninth Circuit, ten months after its 2-1 decision in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, withdraws its old opinion and has issued a new 2-1 decision that comes to the same result in response to the motion for rehearing. The new opinion is four pages shorter than the old opinion, and the new dissent is three pages longer than the old dissent. I haven't yet made a page by page comparison, but the main change appears to be punting on the question of the due process violation of the certification where the old opinion expressly denied the claim of a violation. Judge Kleinfeld's dissent is once again persuasive. Wal-Mart will surely file a new motion for en banc rehearing, and the loser of the proceedings (if any) resulting from that motion will surely file a cert petition.
Dukes v. Wal-Mart redux
Related Entries:
- Around the web, April 11
- Around the web, March 13
- Herzfeld & Rubin, Volkswagen, and Stockholm Syndrome
- Wherein George Soros wastes his money
- CEI amicus in Cobell v. Salazar Indian trust appeal
- Opening brief filed in Cobell v. Salazar
- Around the web, August 15
- Wal-Mart v. Dukes not end of world
- Copland on Wal-Mart v. Dukes
- Breaking: SCOTUS denies cert in Philip Morris USA v. Jackson
- Around the web, June 27
- Podcast on Wal-Mart v. Dukes
- "$7 million to sue Wal-Mart"?
- Wal-Mart v. Dukes & A.E.P. v. Connecticut
- Investment disclosure
![]() |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
| Bridget Carroll Press Officer, Manhattan Institute bcarroll@manhattan-institute.org |



