Devlin v. Scardelletti
The Supreme Court ruled that a retiree who objected to a pension settlement at the fairness hearing could appeal the settlement's approval, even though he was never a named class representative and his motion to intervene had been rejected as too late.
The decision resolves a split among federal appeals courts and means that ordinary class members nationwide can protect their objections on appeal without first having to formally intervene in the lawsuit, as long as they spoke up at the fairness hearing.
“We have never, however, restricted the right to appeal to named parties to the litigation.”
The majority's core reasoning that party status for appeal purposes need not require formal naming.
How it got here: A federal trial court denied Devlin's late motion to intervene and approved the settlement over his objections; the Fourth Circuit held he could not appeal without being a named party or successful intervenor.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Robert Devlin, a retired union member, was covered by a pension plan that added, then eliminated, a cost-of-living benefit increase. When the plan's trustees sued to confirm the benefit cut was valid, Devlin objected to the resulting class-action settlement at a fairness hearing, arguing it unfairly stripped away benefits he had already earned.
The question before the Court
Can a class member who never became a named representative or formally intervened still appeal a court's approval of a class-action settlement he objected to?
The Court's answer
Yes — the Court ruled that a class member who objects to a settlement at the fairness hearing can appeal the settlement's approval, even without being a named class representative or successfully intervening in the case. The Court explained that being a "party" is not an all-or-nothing label; a person can count as a party for some legal purposes and not others, depending on context.
Because an objecting class member is bound by the settlement just like a named party, the Court held he should be treated as a party for the specific, limited purpose of appealing the part of the ruling that rejected his objection. This gives objecting class members a way to protect their own interests once the named parties and the defendant settle over their objection.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Millions of people affected by class-action settlements — from pension disputes to consumer and civil-rights cases — often never become named parties. This ruling means they can appeal a settlement they think is unfair simply by objecting at the fairness hearing, without navigating the extra hurdle of formally intervening in the case.
What changes now
The case returns to the Fourth Circuit, which must now consider the merits of Devlin's objections to the pension settlement rather than dismissing his appeal for lack of party status. Because this is a final merits ruling on class-action procedure, it sets a rule other courts must follow nationwide: objecting class members no longer need to formally intervene to preserve their right to appeal a settlement.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether Devlin's objections to the pension settlement were actually valid — only that he has the right to have them heard on appeal. It also left open whether nonnamed parties bound by a judgment through other legal relationships, not just class membership, may likewise appeal.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Scalia
“The rule that only parties to a lawsuit, or those that properly become parties, may appeal an adverse judgment, is well settled.”The dissent's opening statement of the traditional rule it says the majority abandons.
Justice Scalia argued that under long-settled law only those formally named as parties, or who successfully intervene, may appeal a judgment, and Devlin did neither. He said the majority's flexible, context-dependent definition of 'party' destroys a previously clear rule and replaces it with unpredictable case-by-case judgments. He would have required objecting class members to intervene before appealing, which he argued lets district courts screen out meritless or untimely objections efficiently.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court first separated two different doctrines that share the word 'standing': the constitutional requirement that a case involve a real injury, and the separate question of who counts as a 'party' entitled to appeal a judgment. It found Devlin's constitutional standing obviously satisfied because he would be bound by the settlement.
- Turning to the 'party' question, the Court noted its own precedents allowing nonparties — such as a bidder at a foreclosure sale or a court-appointed receiver — to appeal orders that specifically affected them, even though those people were never named in the underlying lawsuit.
- The Court reasoned that being a 'party' is not an all-or-nothing label; someone can count as a party for some legal purposes (like being bound by a judgment, or having a lawsuit toll a filing deadline on their behalf) but not for others (like defeating a court's diversity jurisdiction).
- Applying that flexible approach, the Court held that a class member who objects at the settlement fairness hearing is bound by the outcome just as fully as a named party, and therefore should be treated as a party for the narrow purpose of appealing the ruling on his own objection.
- The Court concluded that limiting appeals to named representatives or successful intervenors would leave objecting class members with no way to protect their own interests once the named parties settled over their objection, since their interests by then diverge from the class representative's.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Distinguishes Marino v. Ortiz (484 U. S. 301)
The Court said this earlier case, which barred an appeal by non-class-members, does not control because Devlin was actually a class member bound by the judgment.