Craig Konnoth

Spelling Out Spokeo

Co-author(s)
Kreimer, Seth
PUBLISHER
University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online
DATE
2016
 

Abstract

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 Spokeoa 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. 

 

 

 

Citation

Craig Konnoth & Seth Kreimer, Spelling Out Spokeo, 165 University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online 47-62 (2016).
 

More in This Category