Art. III and class representatives under Rule 23

The Fifth Circuit had a nice summary of the current circuit-split over whether class representatives have constitutional standing to litigate harms of class members that the representative didn’t suffer herself.  In Chavez v. Plan Benefit Services, 22-50368 (5th Cir. July 15, 2024), the Court summarizes the two primary approaches to analyzing the standing of class representatives to maintain a class action for harms not exactly like those of the representative: One approach is the “class certification approach,” while the other is “the standing approach.”  Under the former approach, if a class member has standing, that’s enough for Art. III purposes, and the court moves on to address issues re the dissimilarity in injuries suffered under other Rule 23 prerequisites.  But under the later approach, the class representative may be found to lack standing to pursue the class members’ claims if those injuries are not like the class representative’s injuries.  The First, Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuit follow the class certification approach, while the Second and Eleventh Circuit take the standing approach.  The Fifth Circuit concludes that the plaintiff in Chavez has standing under both approaches.