News Release

Austin, TX: The Texas Supreme Court today seized greater authority over class-action lawsuits, which has been a key goal of the big-business tort movement.

A key 1999 legislative priority of Texans for Lawsuit Reform was to pass a bill, SB 274, that would have authorized the Supreme Court to hear appeals of class action certification decisions. “Today the justices helped themselves to more authority over class-action suits than the Texas Legislature would agree to grant to them,” said Texans for Public Justice staff attorney Cristen Feldman. “The fact that these decisions benefit major campaign contributors, further enhances the appearance of impropriety at the Texas Supreme Court.”

Earlier this month Justice Alberto Gonzales said, "The court has said relatively little about class action cases.  We currently have an opportunity to present a much fuller picture in class action in Texas."  The picture, as it turns out, is one where trial courts are reversed and the Supreme Court bends over backwards to extend its authority to the benefit of major campaign contributors.

Class actions lawsuits are critical tools in the fight to protect consumers.  They provide an effective means for individuals to come together when their claims are too small and make it economically viable to pursue a legal remedy.  Class actions are also essential to the efficient function on the judicial system.  They reduce the chance of repetitive litigation and prevent inconsistent results.

In Ford Motor Company v. Sheldon today the court decertified a class of consumers.  The consumers had bought Ford vehicles that they claimed had faulty paint jobs. As a result, they said their vehicles would peel within 18-36 months, costing consumers $2,000 a piece. The plaintiffs alleged that Ford continued to use the same painting process even after it was notified of the problem. To decertify this class action, the Supreme Court overruled both the trial court and the court of appeals.

This decision is all the more disturbing, given the justices’ practice of taking money from interests with cases in their court. Since oral arguments in Ford Motor Company v. Sheldon, the justices have taken $15,500 from the
Texas Auto Dealers Association (an industry organization advancing the interest of auto dealers). An auto dealership is one of the defendants in the suit.

Most of this TADA money—$9,500—went to Justice Alberto Gonzales, who wrote the majority opinion in the other class-action case the court delivered today. In Southwestern Refining Company v. Bernal, the court again
overturned the trial court and the court of appeals certification of a class.  The class consisted of 900 people who brought a claim against the Southwest Refinery in Corpus Christi. They alleged the refinery was responsible for a plume of toxic smoke over their households that allegedly caused skin irritations, headaches, nausea and pet deaths.

The court jumped through numerous hoops in attempting to establish its ever growing jurisdiction in this case.  Employing "conflicts jurisdiction," the majority delivered a 23-page opinion which attempted to justify why it could hear the case. In so doing, Justice Gonzales delivered an opinion that helps the business interests behind Texans for Lawsuit Reform accomplish part of what they failed to get from the Legislature in the last session.

As it happens, Justice Gonzales took $55,000 from Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR) in his current election cycle, which accounts for 10 percent of his entire war chest. In their most recent election cycles, the sitting justices took $838,796 from Texans for Lawsuit Reform. This amounts to 8 percent of their total war chests.

home  | press releases