In the case of Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., the state of Mississippi, represented by Attorney General Jim Hood, sued AU Optronics Corporation and other liquid crystal display (LCD) manufacturers for alleged price-fixing conspiracy that violated both federal antitrust laws and Mississippi's consumer-protection statutes. The defendants sought to move the case from state court to federal court under a law designed for class-action lawsuits, arguing that it was essentially a class action because it involved claims on behalf of numerous citizens in the state. However, in 2013, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Mississippi stating that since this lawsuit was filed by a single entity -the State- rather than multiple plaintiffs or as part of a collective claim or group action; therefore it did not qualify as "mass action" which could be moved to federal court under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). This ruling upheld states' rights to bring such actions against corporations within their own courts.

In the dissenting opinion for MISS. EX REL. HOOD v. AU OPTRONICS CORP., Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Roberts and Thomas, argued that Mississippi's lawsuit against LCD manufacturers was not a "mass action" under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). They contended that CAFA defines mass actions as civil actions in which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that plaintiffs' claims involve common questions of law or fact - but this case did not fit into such category because it was brought by a single plaintiff: The State of Mississippi itself. Therefore, they disagreed with majority’s interpretation stating that “persons” referred to real parties in interest whether named or unnamed; instead they believed “persons” should refer only to named plaintiffs who were officially part of an action.