In Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (S. Ct. May 16, 2016), the U.S. Supreme Court remanded a case brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for reconsideration on the question of whether the plaintiff had adequately pleaded that he had incurred injuries that were “concrete” enough to give him standing. Even though the Supreme Court merely remanded the case and took no position on whether the plaintiff actually did have standing, in failing to affirm the Ninth Circuit decision, the Spokeo decision could have an impact on decisions on standing in lawsuits brought under federal laws other than the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Indeed, federal Fair Housing Act practitioners monitored the progress of Spokeo through the courts even though the case did not directly involve fair housing issues. Those practitioners are justified in expressing concern as to whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo could be used to overturn decades-old decisions interpreting who has standing to bring actions under that statute.
Standing Issue in ‘Spokeo’
This content has been archived.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]
