15 January 2014

Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp.: Previously articulated principles of statutory interpretation or ideological bias?

Professor Gifford
My torts professor, Don Gifford, wrote a law review article which can be summed up as follows: 
Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp. will test the principles of both its conservative and liberal wings. A textualist interpretation, usually favored by Justice Scalia and his conservative colleagues, would not allow such removal — a decidedly anti-business result. At the same time, a purposive approach to interpreting the statutory provision, promoted by Justice Breyer, possibly would allow such removal. For each group of Justices, the conflict is clear: Will they follow their previously articulated principles of statutory interpretation or their ideological bias?
And what result? In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that because Mississippi is the only named plaintiff, this suit does not constitute a mass action under CAFA. As a result, the case could be removed to federal court. Perhaps to the surprise of Professor Gifford (I reached out to him for a response, and he said he was surprised!), Scalia went along with the rest of the Court in reaching what Professor Gifford called "a decidedly anti-business result."
Post a Comment