Summary
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wants the Supreme Court to look again at a rule called the "improper-joinder doctrine." This rule was a focus in a recent case, Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist, which involved a jurisdictional issue that the court ruled on unanimously.
Key Facts
- Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion suggesting the Supreme Court reconsider a 105-year-old rule.
- The case involved a Texas couple suing Hain Celestial Group and Whole Foods over alleged toxic baby food.
- The couple claimed their child's health issues were due to heavy-metal poisoning from the food.
- Hain, a Delaware company, and Whole Foods, located in Texas, were involved in a jurisdictional dispute.
- The Supreme Court backed the Fifth Circuit Court's ruling that the case was improperly moved to federal court.
- Thomas criticized the "improper-joinder doctrine," which lets federal courts evaluate claims beyond their jurisdiction.
- He argued that federal courts shouldn't dismiss parties based on the weakness of claims if they don't have jurisdiction over them.
- Thomas wants the court to address this rule more directly in the future.
