Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf
Page Number: 25

Cite as:  564 U. S. ____ (2011) 

21 

Opinion of the Court 

individualized award of monetary damages.

That interpretation accords with the history of the Rule. 
Because  Rule  23  “stems  from  equity  practice”  that  pre-
dated  its  codification,  Amchem  Products,  Inc.  v.  Windsor, 
521  U. S.  591,  613  (1997),  in  determining  its  meaning  we 
have  previously  looked  to  the  historical  models  on  which 
the  Rule  was  based,  Ortiz  v.  Fibreboard  Corp.,  527  U. S. 
815,  841–845  (1999).    As  we  observed  in  Amchem,  “[c]ivil
rights cases against parties charged with unlawful, class-
based discrimination are prime examples” of what (b)(2) is 
meant  to  capture.  521  U. S.,  at  614.    In  particular,  the 
Rule  reflects  a  series  of  decisions  involving  challenges  to 
racial segregation—conduct that was remedied by a single 
classwide order.  In none of the cases cited by the Advisory
Committee  as  examples  of  (b)(2)’s  antecedents  did  the 
plaintiffs combine any claim for individualized relief with 
their  classwide  injunction.  See  Advisory  Committee’s
Note, 39 F. R. D. 69, 102 (1966) (citing cases); e.g., Potts v. 
Flax,  313  F.  2d  284,  289,  n.  5  (CA5  1963);  Brunson  v. 
Board of Trustees of Univ. of School Dist. No. 1, Clarendon 
Cty.,  311  F. 2d  107,  109  (CA4  1962)  (per  curiam);  Frasier 
v.  Board  of  Trustees  of  N.C.,  134  F.  Supp.  589,  593  (NC 
1955) (three-judge court), aff’d, 350 U. S. 979 (1956). 

Permitting the combination of individualized and class-
wide  relief  in  a  (b)(2)  class  is  also  inconsistent  with  the 
structure of Rule 23(b).  Classes certified under (b)(1) and
(b)(2)  share  the  most  traditional  justifications  for  class 
treatment—that individual adjudications would be impos-
sible or unworkable, as in a (b)(1) class,11 or that the relief 

—————— 

11 Rule 23(b)(1) applies where separate actions by or against individ-
ual  class  members  would  create  a  risk  of  “establish[ing]  incompatible
standards of conduct for the party opposing the class,” Rule 23(b)(1)(A),
such as “where the party is obliged by law to treat the members of the 
class  alike,”  Amchem  Products,  Inc.  v.  Windsor,  521  U.  S.  591,  614 
(1997), or where individual adjudications “as a practical matter, would
be  dispositive  of  the  interests  of  the  other  members  not  parties  to  the