Judge Rachel Bloomekatz, nominated by President Biden to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, cast the deciding vote in a 2-1 ruling that reversed a lower court and allowed a class action against GM for fraud and misrepresentation to go forward. She joined an opinion by Judge Karen Nelson Moore, a Clinton nominee, to which George W Bush nominee Raymond Kethledge dissented. The August 2024 decision was in Fenner v General Motors LLC.
What happened in this case?
Andrei Fenner was one of numerous consumers who purchased a 2011-2016 GM Silverado or similar vehicle, based at least in part on representations by GM in advertising that the vehicle had a “clean diesel” engine with “low emissions” of nitrogen oxide and other pollutants. Fenner, other individuals, and a class of consumers filed a lawsuit against GM because they contend those representations were false and that the vehicles emit pollutants “at levels many times higher” than EPA standards, comparable vehicles, or as advertised.
Fenner filed suit in 2017, and by 2019, more than 2700 plaintiffs had joined on behalf of an even larger class of consumers. The complaint contended that GM and other defendants had violated state consumer protection and fraud laws, and had also breached the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
After some discovery, however, the district court granted summary judgment for GM and dismissed the case. The court held that the consumers did not have standing under RICO and that the Clean Air Act had pre-empted the state law claims. Fenner and the other consumers appealed to the Sixth Circuit.
How did Judge Bloomekatz and the Sixth Circuit rule and why is it Important?
All three judges on the appellate panel agreed that the consumers did not have standing under RICO. But Judge Karen Nelson Moore wrote a 2-1 opinion, joined by Judge Bloomekatz, that reversed the dismissal of the state law claims and held that they were not pre-empted by the Clean Air and could go forward.
Judge Moore carefully analyzed precedent and relevant statutes concerning pre-emption. She explained that in general, the courts had recognized there is a “presumption” against concluding that a federal law has pre-empted and made irrelevant a state law, especially in an area in which states have “traditionally” played a significant role like consumer and environmental protection.
She also distinguished a recent case in which the Sixth Circuit had found that federal law pre-empted claims that a car company had committed “fraud on the agency” by misusing EPA data, which was not the case here. Even if “the EPA did not exist” or “there were no federal emissions standards,” she pointed out, the claims that GM “fraudulently omitted facts about its emissions systems in advertisements” in violation of state law “would live on.”
The ruling made possible by Judge Bloomekatz’s deciding vote is obviously important to Andrei Fenner and the many other consumers who contend they were defrauded by GM. The decision also sets an important precedent concerning claims that federal environmental law pre-empts state law claims, particularly in the Sixth Circuit, which includes Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. The case also serves as a reminder of the importance of promptly confirming fair-minded judges to our federal courts.