Spokeo, Where Shalt Thou Stand?

14 Pages Posted: 7 Nov 2015

See all articles by Joan E. Steinman

Joan E. Steinman

Chicago-Kent College of Law - Illinois Institute of Technology

Date Written: November 1, 2015

Abstract

This essay analyzes three distinct issues raised by Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins and considers where the Court will stand on each of them. First, I consider whether the Court will decide the question on which it granted certiorari: "[w]hether Congress may confer Article III standing upon a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm, and who therefore could not otherwise invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, by authorizing a private right of action based on a bare violation of a federal statute?" I explain why the Court might dismiss its writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. Second, I address whether Spokeo, Inc. or Robins has the better of the argument concerning Robins’ standing to sue. I opine that the Court’s decisions regarding standing in disputes concerning informational rights and wrongs indicate that it should find that the injury alleged by Robins is sufficiently concrete to confer Article III standing, and that Robins also satisfies prudential standing doctrines. Finally, I argue that the Court should not be dissuaded from so holding by the fact that the suit was brought as a class action.

Keywords: standing, injury, improvident grant, class actions, Supreme Court

JEL Classification: K10, K30, K40, K42, K11

Suggested Citation

Steinman, Joan E., Spokeo, Where Shalt Thou Stand? (November 1, 2015). Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 68, 2015, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2686936

Joan E. Steinman (Contact Author)

Chicago-Kent College of Law - Illinois Institute of Technology ( email )

565 W. Adams St.
Chicago, IL 60661-3691
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
50
Abstract Views
601
PlumX Metrics