Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-297_4g25.pdf
Page Number: 36

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

5 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

This power “shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,
arising  under  this  Constitution,  the  Laws  of  the  United
States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under 
their  Authority.”  §2  (emphasis  added).    When  a  federal 
court  has  jurisdiction  over  a  case  or  controversy,  it  has  a 
“virtually  unflagging  obligation”  to  exercise  it.    Colorado 
River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S. 
800, 817 (1976).

The mere filing of a complaint in federal court, however,
does not a case (or controversy) make.  Article III “does not 
extend the judicial power to every violation of the constitu-
tion” or federal law “which may possibly take place.”  Co-
hens  v.  Virginia,  6  Wheat.  264,  405  (1821).   Rather,  the 
power extends only “to ‘a case in law or equity,’ in which a 
right, under such law, is asserted.”  Ibid. (emphasis added).
Key to the scope of the judicial power, then, is whether an 
individual asserts his or her own rights.  At the time of the 
founding, whether a court possessed judicial power over an 
action  with  no  showing  of  actual  damages  depended  on 
whether  the  plaintiff  sought  to  enforce  a  right  held  pri-
vately by an individual or a duty owed broadly to the com-
munity.  See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U. S. 330, 344–346 
(2016)  (THOMAS,  J.,  concurring);  see  also  Thole  v.  U. S. 
Bank N. A., 590 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2020) (same) (slip op.,
at  1–2);  3  W.  Blackstone,  Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of 
England 2 (J. Chitty ed. 1826); 4 id., at 5.  Where an indi-
vidual sought to sue someone for a violation of his private 
rights,  such  as  trespass  on  his  land,  the  plaintiff  needed
only  to  allege  the  violation.    See  Entick  v.  Carrington,  2 
Wils.  K.  B.  275,  291,  95  Eng.  Rep.  807,  817  (K.  B.  1765).
Courts typically did not require any showing of actual dam-
age.  See Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 592 U. S. ___, ___–___ 
(2021)  (slip  op.,  at  5–6).    But  where  an  individual  sued 
based on the violation of a duty owed broadly to the whole 
community, such as the overgrazing of public lands, courts
required “not only injuria [legal injury] but also damnum