Argument of Speaker
Mr. Speaker: The opinion of the Court in No. 01-417 Devlin versus Scardelletti will be announced by Justice O’Connor.
Argument of Justice O’connor
Mr. O’connor: This case comes here on writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
The question before us is whether the petitioner, a member of the plaintiff’s class, certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) who objected to the approval of a settlement at the fairness hearing may subsequently bring an appeal despite the fact that he is neither a named class representative, nor a successful intervener in the action.
Reversing the Fourth Circuit, we hold that he can.
This Court has held that only parties may properly bring an appeal.
We have never restricted this rule however, to named parties.
Petitioner’s interest is similar to those of non-parties we have allowed to appeal in the past.
He objected in the District Court and most importantly, he is bound by the District Court’s approval of the settlement.
This should be sufficient to trigger his right to appeal.
That right cannot be effectively accomplished through the named class representative.
Once the class representative reaches a settlement with which another class member does not agree, their interest necessarily diverge.
Allowing an appeal is necessary to protect petitioner’s interests in the settlement by which he has bound despite his expressed objections before the District Court.
We also reject the government’s suggestion that non-named class members should be required to first intervene for purposes of appeal.
The government admits such intervention should be freely granted.
We therefore, see little advantage to requiring the class members to go through the additional steps of seeking District Court approval of their right to appeal.
As no statute or rule of civil procedure requires such intervention, we decline to require it here.
Justice Scalia has filed a descending opinion which Justices Kennedy and Thomas have joined.
