Thomas v. American Home Products, Inc.

Background

This case arose from a personal-injury, products-liability dispute that ended up in federal court because the parties are from different states. The district court entered summary judgment against the people who sued, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. After rehearing was denied, the Supreme Court of Georgia issued a new decision (Banks II) that changed how the relevant Georgia law applies and said the earlier state ruling was retroactive; the losing parties asked the United States Supreme Court to act in light of that change.

Reasoning

The core question was whether the Supreme Court should vacate the lower courts’ judgment and send the case back because of the intervening Georgia decision. The Court used the long-standing GVR procedure (grant, vacate, remand) to let the appeals court reconsider the case in light of the state supreme court’s ruling. Justice Scalia’s concurrence explained that GVR has historical support and need not meet the usual Rule 10 tests for full review. The practical result is that the Eleventh Circuit must reconsider the earlier decision under the new statement of Georgia law rather than the Supreme Court deciding the state-law question itself.

Real world impact

The ruling gives parties in similar diversity cases another chance when a state’s highest court changes the governing law after an appeal. The decision is procedural, not a final ruling on the merits, and outcomes may change on reconsideration. The dissent warned this approach could encourage many similar requests and increase appellate workload.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia joined the GVR as appropriate under historical practice; Chief Justice Rehnquist (joined by Justice Breyer) dissented, arguing the Court should not intervene in routine state-law errors and that the action burdens federal courts.