On June 29, after two earlier postponements and following a debate that saw opponents of the bill far more spirited and passionate than its supporters, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 11-7 to report to the full Senate S. 353, the so-called "Class Action Fairness Act."

The bill has nothing to do with fairness-its only purpose is to radically expand the jurisdiction of the Federal District Courts, which it does by authorizing the removal of virtually all civil actions that are filed as class actions in state court.

Supporters of the bill failed to attract the widespread bipartisan support which they sought. In fact, seven of the eight committee Democrats, including Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Charles Schumer(D-NY) whom supporters of the bill had targeted, voted for all pro-consumer amendments and against the bill. Only Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI) of the committee Democrats voted to report the bill.

Ranking Democratic member Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), joined by Senators Joe Biden (D-DE), Robert Toricelli (D-NJ), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Edward Kennedy (D-MA), and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) led the fight against the bill and offered the pro-consumer amendments. Senators Leahy and Biden went so far as to pledge a spirited filibuster should Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) seek to bring the bill to the floor for a vote later this session.

Among the pro-consumer amendments were ones that would have carved out from the bill class actions involving environmental issues, guns, and tobacco, as well as litigation involving to state consumer protection statutes. One amendment would have prevented the removal- dismissal-removal merry-go-round that the bill almost certainly would create.

S. 353, which would force cases into congested federal courts and delay justice for plaintiffs, is yet another effort by Big Tobacco, the insurance industry and corporate polluters to avoid legal accountability.

ATLA is opposed to the Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act. Others opposed to this Big Business bill include the American Lung Association, Friends of the Earth, the Conference of Chief Justices, the Judicial Conference of the United States, and the Attorneys General of California, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Tennessee and West Virginia.

Testifying on this bill before the Senate Subcommittee last year, Professor Richard Daynard of Northeastern University School of Law stated, "To send tobacco class actions to federal court is to send them to their death." Before the House Judiciary Committee, he testified that the bill "would have the almost certain effect of extinguishing all class actions against tobacco companies." Read what others are saying about the Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act.

This class action legislation is a brazen attempt to alter a system that has been in place since 1789 by creating new "minimal diversity" requirements. The requirements would give jurisdiction to federal district courts if any member of a proposed class is a citizen of a different state than any defendant.

While there are approximately 4,700 counties and independent cities in the United States, there are only 96 federal districts. Forcing these cases into federal courts means increasing stress and expense for plaintiffs who would have to travel, in some cases, hundreds of miles to participate in courtroom proceedings. How class action "reform" denies justice to consumers.

Tort "reformers" have been lobbying for these removal bills despite objections from the federal bench.

In November 1994, the Judicial Conference of the United States issued its Proposed Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts, which proposed shifting cases out of the federal system. Under the proposal, nearly all cases involving citizens from different states would be shifted from federal to state courts–exactly the opposite of what the two current class action bills propose.

Even Chief Justice William Rehnquist has commented on the trend of moving cases to federal court: "I . . . criticized Congress and the president for their propensity to enact more and more legislation that brings more and more cases into the federal court system." Why Congress should stop expanding the role of the federal courts.

Note: For the latest version of these bills and their status, see http://thomas.loc.gov/ and search at the top of the page for the bill number.