The Center for Consumer Law & Economic Justice, representing ten organizations serving low-income consumers, workers, tenants, and the elderly, filed an amicus brief in Askins v. CRST Expedited, Inc. urging the California Court of Appeal to affirm that state courts remain accessible forums for people whose rights under federal law have been violated.
The right to bring a case, or “standing,” is a threshold issue. In federal court, it can be a high hurdle to clear. Plaintiffs there must demonstrate they have suffered concrete harm, typically in the form of tangible economic or physical injury. It is not enough that Congress has passed a law making what happened to them illegal. So if, for example, TransUnion mistakenly reports that you are considered a “terrorist” and refuses to fix the error––a violation of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)–– you can’t bring your case in federal court unless you’ve also been denied a job or housing or credit. Why not? Because the U.S. Constitution says federal courts can hear only “cases” or “controversies,” and the Supreme Court has read those two words to mean that plaintiffs must have been harmed in a tangible way.
California courts, however, have never imposed such a demanding requirement as a blanket rule. In fact, broad access to state courts was a core principle built into the federal Constitution over two centuries ago. The Founders justified granting federal courts only “limited jurisdiction” over specific types of cases because state courts would still exercise general jurisdiction – that is, they would be open to all kinds of cases, including claims made under federal law. California has followed that principle. All that California courts require is that plaintiffs plead a valid cause of action and show a sufficient interest in the outcome. And when a claim is based on a statute, the violation of that law by itself establishes the right to sue.
Enter Terry Askins. There is no dispute that Mr. Askins’ employer failed to provide the disclosures mandated by the FCRA prior to conducting a background check. Yet Mr. Askins was tossed out of California superior court for lacking a sufficient injury. The trial court held that because Mr. Askins got the job for which he applied, he did not suffer concrete harm. And concrete harm, the court held, is required for standing in state court as well as federal court.
That decision by the Askins trial court relied on Limón v. Circle K Stores, Inc., a 2022 court of appeal decision that broke from 150 years of California legal tradition. Without any basis in the text or history of the California Constitution or any California statute, Limón held that California courts have always required concrete injury to sue. Since then, corporate defendants have been using Limón to block people from pursuing valid claims in California courts. Fortunately, in the past year, four courts of appeal, spanning five published decisions, have pushed back on Limón, giving trial courts throughout California clear authority to reject these unfounded challenges. Askins, however, takes on Limón more directly. Limón involved a federal statute, the FCRA. So far, the decisions departing from Limón have addressed state statutes. Askins is the first appellate case since Limón that involves a federal statute – and it takes on the same law, the FCRA.
The Center’s amicus brief explains why the rules for who can sue in California superior court apply equally to all claims, whether based on federal or state law. For over two centuries, Congress has passed laws with the understanding that state courts can hear federal claims. When Congress has wanted to block a federal claim from being brought in state court, it has done so. There is no such provision in the FCRA.
That means Mr. Askins can bring, in California state court, his uncontested claim for a violation of federal law. If he couldn’t, then he’d have nowhere to go to seek redress. Consequently, large corporations could go about violating federal laws––clearly written and duly passed by Congress––so long as they don’t cause an obvious financial harm or other concrete injury.
That is not what the Founders intended in 1787, and it is not what the framers of California’s Constitution envisioned in 1849. Denial of access to justice is an affront to this Nation’s dual judicial system, and the Center will fight to ensure that, in California, the courthouse doors remain open to all.