In recent years, the class action has become a favorite tool of public interest lawyers and of small plaintiffs attacking large corporate defendants. It has, however, fallen into disfavor in many federal courts because of its potential for abuse. In December 1973, the Supreme Court dealt a not unexpected blow to the Rule 23(b)(3) class action, ruling in Zahn v. International Paper Co.¹ that all members of the class, not merely the named plaintiffs, must satisfy the $10,000 jurisdictional amount for diversity suits in federal courts. The six-man "new majority" of the current Supreme Court declared its result to be dictated by the logic of Snyder v. Harris,² the 1969 decision in which the Court ruled that two or more plaintiffs with separate and distinct claims, none of which individually reached the $10,000 level, could not aggregate their claims to meet the statutory amount. Justices Brennan, Douglas, and Marshall dissented, arguing that Snyder was not controlling. The decision is not likely to have a major impact on environmental law, though other public interest litigators, particularly those representing consumer groups, may be hard hit.

The suit was brought by four Vermont lakeshore property owners on behalf of themselves and more than 200 other unnamed members of the class, seeking recovery for damage caused by discharges into Lake Champlain from the International Paper Company's pulp plant located on the New York side of the lake. The district court refused to permit the suit to proceed as a class action, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. In upholding the appellate court's decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the district court could properly exercise jurisdiction over the four named plaintiffs, each of whom alleged damages of more than $10,000, but that the claims of all others must be dismissed for failure to show the requisite amount of injury.