The U.S. Supreme Court’s latest term ended with a significant decision tightening the requirements for showing Article III standing to sue in federal court. That decision, TransUnion v. Ramirez, has widely been seen as a welcome development for defendants, particularly those facing large class actions alleging regulatory violations with hefty statutory damages. But the lasting implications of the decision are less clear, including the possibility that defendants may unwittingly find themselves defending such matters exclusively in state courts—forums many have sought to avoid. It will be important for plaintiffs and defendants alike to understand and contend with the nuances of TransUnion’s reach.
Justice Kavanaugh, writing for the court, put the issue succinctly: “No concrete harm, no standing.” This is so, the court held, even if Congress specifically authorized a cause of action for plaintiffs to sue and recover damages. What matters, according to the court, is that the plaintiff alleges—and later proves—that the legal violation caused a “concrete” harm. The court explained that an asserted harm is sufficiently concrete when “it has a ‘close relationship’ to a harm traditionally recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
