Spelling Out Spokeo
University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online
Craig Konnoth & Seth Kreimer, Spelling Out Spokeo, 165 U. Pa. L. Rev. Online 47 (2016), https://www.pennlawreview.com/online/165-U-Pa-L-Rev-Online-47.pdf, available at http://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/396/.
For almost five decades, the injury-in-fact requirement has been a mainstay of Article III standing doctrine. Critics have attacked the requirement as incoherent and unduly malleable. But the Supreme Court has continued to announce “injury in fact” as the bedrock of justiciability. In Spokeo v. Robins, the Supreme Court confronted a high profile and recurrent conflict regarding the standing of plaintiffs claiming statutory damages. It clarified some matters, but remanded the case for final resolution. This Essay derives from the cryptic language of Spokeo, a six stage process (complete with flowchart) that represents the Court’s current equilibrium. We put each step in the context of standing precedent. We show that while Spokeo added some structure to the injury in fact doctrine, each stage of the analysis allows play in the joints that leaves future courts and litigants substantial room for maneuver.
Copyright protected. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. Permission to publish or reproduce is required.
This document is currently not available here.