For too long, the American civil justice system has delivered uneven justice. For manufacturers faced with lawsuits, the outcome of the cases they defend is often determined by where they are sued.
Pockets of jurisdictions have developed across the country that act as magnets for mass action litigation because they are perceived as biased against out-of-state defendants. For example, 1,660 asbestos lawsuits were filed in Madison County, Ill., courts in 2013, 92 percent of them on behalf of out-of-state residents. Manufacturing companies from across industries are prime targets for these types of location-driven lawsuits, which often have little true connection to the court in which they are brought.
The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, anticipated this problem and provided a remedy. They did this by ensuring that defendants could have their cases heard in federal court if the case was of a certain size and just one defendant was from a different state as the plaintiff — a concept known as “diversity jurisdiction.”
The idea behind diversity jurisdiction was to prevent the very problem we now so acutely face. Unfortunately, with little explanation, the Supreme Court in 1806 watered down this concept by requiring that all parties — not just one — be from different states in order for a case to be heard in federal court. As a result, it is easy for plaintiffs to keep their cases in whichever state courts they think will be most favorable by simply naming an in-state defendant in the suit. By encouraging this behavior, the doctrine of “complete diversity” encourages speculative litigation and undermines confidence in our civil justice system.
We could go a long way toward bringing back balance to the U.S. judicial system by re-establishing the clear and original intent of the Founding Fathers — restoring a system of minimal diversity and eliminating the perception that certain state courts are biased against out-of-state defendants. A recent study released by the National Association of Manufacturers examines the potential impact on court caseloads of implementing such a reform and estimates that it would be no more than 7.7 percent.
While such changes to longstanding practice can be complex and difficult, the potential positive impact of such reforms is worthy of consideration by the legal, academic and public policy communities. The Restore Our Courts project at the NAM’s Manufacturers’ Center for Legal Action supports a focused and sustained effort to create the environment and build the momentum for reform.
It’s time to put an end to jackpot justice and restore faith in our great American legal system. This reform is not about stacking the deck, and it’s not about picking winners and losers. It’s about ensuring fairness and equal treatment under the law for all defendants.
Equal justice isn’t just a constitutional concept; it’s a mandate. And it’s one all manufacturers, and all Americans, expect and deserve.
Linda Kelly is senior vice president and general counsel at the National Association of Manufacturers. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.
