Patrick Morrisey, Governor of West Virginia, et al. v. Jonathan R., Minor, by Next Friend, Sarah Dixon, et al.

Respondents asked a federal court to remake West Virginia’s foster-care system. Their forty-seven all-ornothing demands encompassed every part of that system: caseload ceilings and hiring qualifications for caseworkers; timetables for evaluations, case plans, and permanency plans; a placement-matching process and foster-home recruitment plan; target rates for maltreatment, placement stability, and permanency; an outside entity to run placements; and a monitor above it all. Similarly broad suits are pending across the country—by one count, in thirty-four States. After certifying two classes covering every child now or ever in the State’s custody, the district court dismissed the suit for lack of standing. It held it could not redress Respondents’ claims without exercising a power it did not have: the power to take total control of the state system. A divided Fourth Circuit reversed, announcing that a court “not only holds the power, but a duty, to implement, oversee, and administer reform of state institutions”— even when it becomes “a manager or policy planner.” It also refused to review the certification order, holding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) barred review even though the order had merged into the final judgment. The questions presented are:

1. Is a claim redressable when the only relief said to be effective requires a federal court to become the “manager or policy planner” of a state agency?

2. When a class-certification order merges into a final judgment, does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) nonetheless bar an appellate court from reviewing that order on a cross-appeal from the judgment?