Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf
Page Number: 33.0

2 

WAL-MART STORES, INC. v. DUKES 

Opinion of GINSBURG, J. 

In  so  ruling,  the  Court  imports  into  the  Rule  23(a)  de-
termination concerns properly addressed in a Rule 23(b)(3) 
assessment. 

I 

A 

Rule  23(a)(2)  establishes  a  preliminary  requirement  for 
maintaining a class action: “[T]here are questions of law or
fact  common  to  the  class.”2   The  Rule  “does  not  require
that all questions of law or fact raised in the litigation be 
common,”  1  H.  Newberg  &  A.  Conte,  Newberg  on  Class 
Actions  §3.10,  pp. 3–48  to  3–49  (3d  ed.  1992);  indeed,
“[e]ven  a  single  question  of  law  or  fact  common  to  the
members  of  the  class  will  satisfy  the  commonality  re-
quirement,” Nagareda, The Preexistence Principle and the
Structure of the Class Action, 103 Colum. L. Rev. 149, 176, 
n. 110  (2003).    See  Advisory  Committee’s  1937  Notes  on
Fed.  Rule  Civ.  Proc.  23,  28  U. S. C.  App.,  p.  138  (citing 
with approval cases in which “there was only a question of 
law or fact common to” the class members). 

A  “question”  is  ordinarily  understood  to  be  “[a]  subject 
or point open to controversy.”  American Heritage Diction-
ary  1483  (3d  ed.  1992).    See  also  Black’s  Law  Dictionary 
1366  (9th  ed.  2009)  (defining  “question  of  fact”  as  “[a]
disputed issue to be resolved . . . [at] trial” and “question of 
law”  as  “[a]n  issue  to  be  decided  by  the  judge”).    Thus,  a 
“question” “common to the class” must be a dispute, either 

—————— 

2 Rule  23(a)  lists  three  other  threshold  requirements  for  class-action 
certification: “(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable”; “(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties 
are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representa-
tive parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.”
The  numerosity  requirement  is  clearly  met  and  Wal-Mart  does  not 
contend  otherwise.  As  the  Court  does  not  reach  the  typicality  and
adequacy requirements, ante, at 9, n. 5, I will not discuss them either, 
but  will  simply  record  my  agreement  with  the  District  Court’s  resolu-
tion of those issues.