Craig Konnoth

Spelling Out Spokeo

CO-AUTHORS Seth Kreimer
University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online


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. 





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

More in This Category

  • Studies of federalism, especially in the United States, have mostly centered on state autonomy and the vertical relationship between the states and... MORE
  • Constitutional review is the power of a body, usually a court, to assess whether law or government action complies with the constitution. Originating... MORE
  • In 2018, Congress rightly highlighted the problem of sex trafficking, which is a moral abomination and vicious scourge. It condemned sites like... MORE