In a statement accompanying a U.S. Supreme Court denial of review in the certification of a class alleging antitrust-law violations arising from the merger of satellite digital audio radio services, Justice Samuel Alito opined that the district court’s apparent practice of requiring class counsel, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(1)(B), to “fairly reflect the class composition in terms of relevant race and gender metrics” is indefensible and would not likely survive a constitutional challenge. Martin v. Blessing, No. 13-169 (U.S., certiorari denied November 18, 2013). Because the Second Circuit decided an objector’s appeal of the class settlement on standing grounds and because the U.S. Supreme Court is “not a court of error correction,” Alito did not dissent from the refusal to grant review. He stressed, however, that the denial “does not constitute an expression of any opinion on the merits,” and “[i]f the challenged appointment practice continues and is not addressed by the Court of Appeals, future review may be warranted."