The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, exploring whether a plaintiff can maintain a lawsuit in federal court based solely on the violation of a federal statute where the plaintiff has suffered no actual injury or harm.
Holding that Congress can create an injury from a technical violation of a statute would “essentially wipe out” the second and third prongs of the Article III standing analysis, which are that an injury must be fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and that a favorable court decision will likely redress the injury, said Derin Dickerson, partner in Alston & Bird’s Litigation & Trial Practice.
“The implications of the ruling are wide-ranging and far-reaching,” Dickerson said. “If the class representative doesn’t have to determine that each class member was actually injured, then commonality and predominance will be easier to prove.”
Holding that Congress can create an injury from a technical violation of a statute would “essentially wipe out” the second and third prongs of the Article III standing analysis, which are that an injury must be fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and that a favorable court decision will likely redress the injury, said Derin Dickerson, partner in Alston & Bird’s Litigation & Trial Practice.
“The implications of the ruling are wide-ranging and far-reaching,” Dickerson said. “If the class representative doesn’t have to determine that each class member was actually injured, then commonality and predominance will be easier to prove.”