The U.S. Supreme Court case Lexecon Inc. et al. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach et al., 1997, revolved around a procedural issue in multidistrict litigation (MDL). The law firm of Milberg Weiss was sued by Lexecon for defamation and tortious interference after the former accused the latter of fraudulent conduct during an MDL process related to Lincoln Savings and Loan Association's collapse. A key point of contention was whether a federal judge assigned to oversee pretrial proceedings in an MDL could transfer cases from their original districts to his or her own district for trial under §1404(a) or §1407, which are statutes that govern change-of-venue decisions within federal courts. In this case, Judge Bilby transferred the lawsuit against Milberg Weiss from Illinois (where it had been filed) to Arizona where he presided over all other related lawsuits concerning Lincoln Savings' failure; however, he died before trial began so another judge took over who decided not only pretrial matters but also conducted the actual trial. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that such self-transfers were improper because they violated specific language in §1407 which states that each individual action "shall be remanded by the panel at or before conclusion" of coordinated/consolidated pretrial proceedings back to its originating court unless otherwise stipulated by parties involved.

In the dissenting opinion for Lexecon Inc. et al. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach et al., Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg, argued that the majority's interpretation of the law was too rigid and failed to consider practical implications. They contended that Congress intended to give federal judges broad discretion in managing multidistrict litigation (MDL) cases, including transferring them for trial if necessary for efficient resolution. The dissenters believed this flexibility was crucial given the complexity and scale of MDLs which often involve hundreds or thousands of lawsuits consolidated from across different districts nationwide. They feared that without such authority, these massive litigations could become unmanageable leading to delays and inefficiencies contrary to Congress' intent when it enacted laws governing MDLs.