Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf
Page Number: 36

Cite as:  602 U. S. ____ (2024) 

7 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

end goal: One lawsuit can provide relief to a large group of
people.  “As compared to a class action,” however, associa-
tional  standing  seems  to  require  “show[ing]  an  injury  to 
only a single member,” and the association “need not show 
that  litigation  by  representation  is  superior  to  individual
litigation.”  13A C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal
Practice  and  Procedure  §3531.9.5,  pp.  879–880  (3d  ed.,
Supp. 2023); see also Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(a).  Associa-
tional  standing  thus  allows  a  party  to  effectively  bring  a
class action without satisfying any of the ordinary require-
ments.  Second, associational standing creates the possibil-
ity of asymmetrical preclusion.  The basic idea behind pre-
clusion is that a party gets only one bite at the apple.  If a 
party litigates and loses an issue or claim, it can be barred
from reasserting that same issue or claim in another suit. 
In general, preclusion prevents the relitigation of claims or
issues  only  by  a  party  to  a  previous  action,  and  we  have 
been careful to limit the exceptions to that rule.  See Taylor 
v. Sturgell, 553 U. S. 880, 892–893 (2008).  In the context of 
associational  standing,  the  general  rule  would  mean  that 
preclusion applies only to the association, even though the
purpose of the association’s suit is to assert the injuries of 
its members.  See id., at 893–896.  But, if the association 
loses, it is not clear whether the adverse judgment would 
bind the members.  See Automobile Workers v. Brock, 477 
U. S. 274, 290 (1986) (suggesting that, if an association fails 
to  adequately  represent  its  members,  “a  judgment  won 
against it might not preclude subsequent claims by the as-
sociation’s members without offending due process princi-
ples”).  Associational standing might allow a member two
bites  at  the  apple—after  an  association’s  claims  are  re-
jected, the underlying members might be able to assert the
exact same issues or claims in a suit in their own names. 

In short, our associational-standing doctrine appears to
create serious problems, both constitutional and otherwise.