Sausage-making, pigs' ears, and congressional expansions of federal jurisdiction: Exxon Mobil v. Allapattah and its lessons for the Class Action Fairness Act

The year 2005 witnessed two watershed developments in federal jurisdiction: the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. and the enactment of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Allapattah and CAFA raise the same fundamental question: how should courts interpret a statute whose text would expand federal jurisdiction far beyond what Congress apparently intended? In Allapattah, the Court confronted this question in resolving an aspect of the supplemental jurisdiction statute that had deeply divided both the judiciary and academia. CAFA's expansion of federal jurisdiction over class actions will require courts to struggle with this question once again. It is argued that CAFA - like its older cousin the supplemental jurisdiction statute - contains a fundamental disconnect between the legislative history and the statutory text. Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority decision in Allapattah is examined to divine its lessons for interpreting CAFA.