“This case isn’t just about the economy, it’s about judicial economy. Judges have a responsibility not to let self-described ‘nonsensical’ judgments go forth into the world as law—correctable only years later, if at all, by appellate judges sitting at a remove and on a delay.”
—Zac Morgan, WLF Senior Litigation Counsel

Click here to read WLF’s brief.

(Washington, DC)—Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, urging it to uphold a district court’s decision to spike a $4.7 billion “nonsensical” jury verdict against the NFL.

The case arises from a sprawling antitrust claim brought by subscribers to the NFL’s “Sunday Ticket,” a service that allows viewers (whether individuals or sports bar owners) to watch nationwide NFL games for a fee. Before trial, the NFL urged the district court against admitting unscientific testimony offered by the plaintiffs. The district court declined to do so, a decision it regretted after the trial revealed that the testimony did not meet the strict evidentiary standards required by the Federal Rules of Evidence. Worse yet, the district court realized that the jury’s multi-billion-dollar judgment was built entirely on a foundation of sand—the very same unscientific testimony it let in.

Rather than let this colossal error go forth, the judge acted swiftly and determined that the verdict could not stand as a matter of law. Such directed judgments are rare in our system, but they serve a vital role for cases like this.

As WLF’s amicus brief explains, when courts determine that evidence is scientific and appropriate for a jury before admitting it, they serve a gatekeeping role like a bouncer or door person at a bar. When an underage drinker inadvertently gets through and causes trouble, the bouncer has a responsibility to expel him, not leave him to cause further mischief. Likewise, when a district court suffers gatekeeper’s remorse on an essential evidentiary ruling, it should promptly and properly self-correct for that mistake.

Affirmance will tell district courts to fix their own messes, while reversal will incentivize just the opposite—at great costs to litigants seeking justice. As WLF’s brief notes, “Second only to getting the call right the first time, self-correction is far preferable to letting serious evidentiary errors go forth as law, only mendable months or even years later” on appellate review.