The Class Action Fairness Act in Perspective: the Old and the New in Federal Jurisdictional Reform
THE CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT IN PERSPECTIVE: THE OLD AND THE NEW IN FEDERAL JURISDICTIONAL REFORM EDWARD A. PURCELL, JR.t INTRODUCTION The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) was the product of an extended and well-organized political campaign. In Congress, its passage required a grinding eight-year effort, several modifications to the original proposal, numerous committee hearings, multiple reports by both Houses, political compromises that drew some Democratic support, two unsuccessful attempts to terminate debate in the Senate by imposing cloture, and strenuous efforts to amend in both the House and Senate when the bill came to the floor for a final vote.2 Passage also required Republican control of both Houses of Congress and the presidency as well. Compared to the determined political campaign necessary to se- cure its passage, CAFA itself might seem a relatively minor measure. Ostensibly, it altered no substantive law, denied no one a judicial fo- rum, left the federal judicial power untouched, relied on established congressional authority, and bowed to federalism by limiting its exten- sion of national authority to class actions with significant interstate connections. Indeed, the changes it made might appear to some nar- t Joseph Solomon Distinguished Professor, New York Law School. The author wishes to thank Molly Beutz, Stephen B. Burbank, Tai-Heng Cheng, Diane Fahey, Marc Galanter, Brandt Goldstein, Larry Levine, Michael McCarthy, Richard A. Matasar, Tan- ina Rostain, Joyce Saltalamachia, Faith Stevelman, and Donald Zeigler for helpful comments and suggestions, and Kasi L. Carson and Christina Trapani for their invalu- able research assistance. Pub. L.
[Show full text]