MSU Law Professor’s Amicus Brief Cited in Federal Appellate Ruling

On April 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit unanimously held that veterans can bring class actions in the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.  Their decision relied in part on an amicus brief filed by MSU Law Professor Michael Sant’Ambrogio and his frequent co-author, Loyola Law Professor Adam Zimmerman.

The group of veterans who filed the lawsuit claimed that thousands of veterans have been waiting years for decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs regarding their benefits, causing severe medical and financial hardships.  But the Veterans Court created by Congress to hear their claims refused to let them seek relief as a class rather than bring thousands of individual cases, claiming that the Veterans Court had no authority to certify a class action.  The Federal Circuit reversed the Veterans Court on that point, holding that: On the basis of the express statutory authority of the Veterans Court to prescribe “rules of practice and procedure,” the Veterans Court may prescribe procedures for class actions or other methods of aggregation.

The Federal Circuit also agreed with Sant’Ambrogio and Zimmerman that “class actions can help the Veterans Court exercise that authority by promoting efficiency, consistency, and fairness, and improving access to legal and expert assistance by parties with limited resources.”

The case now goes back to the Veterans Court, where the veterans will have to establish that they satisfy the normal prerequisites for a class action.

The Federal Circuit’s decision has far-reaching consequences for the power of Article I courts and administrative agencies to aggregate similar claims.  As the Federal Circuit noted, relying on Sant’Ambrogio and Zimmerman’s brief, numerous non-Article III tribunals rely on “similar [statutory] language … to aggregate claims and create class action procedures.”  Sant’Ambrogio and Zimmerman co-authored a 2016 Report and Recommendations to the Administrative Conference of the United States contending that agencies could aggregate cases or claims involving common questions of law or fact based on such statutory language.  Their recommendations were subsequently adopted by ACUS and published in the Federal Register.

“It’s nice to have now two branches of the federal government endorse our views,” said Sant’Ambrogio.