The Case for Appellate Review of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) determines if cases pending in different district courts throughout the country should be centralized into a multidistrict litigation (MDL). This Article is the first to argue that the JPML should be subject to appellate review. MDLs are incredibly important. Over half of all federal civil cases are currently centralized into MDLs, and MDLs touch on pressing issues such as the opioid crisis and climate change. Because of this, the JPML’s decisions can have significant consequences. Despite these consequences, these decisions cannot be appealed. MDLs have received significant attention in recent years, and we are currently in a golden age of scholarship on MDLs. But very little has been written on the JPML itself, and no one has argued in favor of appellate review of the JPML. Despite the lack of attention, appellate review of the JPML is important. Like class certification, which is appealable, MDL centralization is essentially dispositive in many cases. Additionally, appellate review of the JPML would further important goals such as clarifying the law, ensuring correct outcomes, and promoting due process. There are, however, reasons to be cautious about expanding appellate review. In this Article, I argue for appellate review of the JPML, address the drawbacks, and present a specific policy proposal for expanding appellate review of the JPML that captures the benefits of appellate review while avoiding the pitfalls.