In recent years, much political and legal debate has centered on the class action lawsuit. Many lawyers and judges have noted the intense pressure to settle caused by the very filing of a suit. Some contend that the procedure amounts to a form of judicial blackmail. Others counter that it is an effective means of policing corporate behavior and assuring injured victims' fair compensation.
This book represents the first scholarly effort to view the modern class action comprehensively through the lenses of American political and constitutional theory. Redish argues that the modern class action undermines foundational constitutional principles, including procedural due process and separation of powers, and has been improperly transformed from its origins as a complex procedural device into a means for altering controlling substantive law in highly undemocratic ways. Redish proposes an alternative vision of the class action lawsuit, one that is designed to enable the device to serve its valuable procedural purposes without simultaneously contravening core precepts of American constitutional democracy.
Martin Redish, "Wholesale Justice", forthcoming in May
- New Featured Discussion:"Class actions: rife with abuse or an important legal safeguard?"
- Federal district court dismisses Netflix suit
- Hans Bader on challenging class-action abuses
- Wal-Mart Settlement Offer: Potentially Pocket Change for Class Member Participants
- Wal-Mart v. Dukes & A.E.P. v. Connecticut
- Back Doctors Ltd. v. Metropolitan Property & Cas. Ins. Co.: CAFA jurisdictional limits
- Kabateck Brown Kellner and a figurehead plaintiff?
- Today is the AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion argument
- Big Apple v. Apple settlement: Ira Stoll responds
- Lawyers Sue Facebook For Letting Kids Like Advertisements
- Around the web, August 4
- Class actions in the news
- Told-you-so dept.: USDOT exonerates Toyota
- William Lerach's redemption tour hits the D.C. Omni Shoreham
- Canada's class action bust
Center for Legal Policy at the