Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-297_4g25.pdf
Page Number: 12

8 

TRANSUNION LLC v. RAMIREZ 

Opinion of the Court 

Requiring a plaintiff to demonstrate a concrete and par-
ticularized injury caused by the defendant and redressable 
by  the  court  ensures  that  federal  courts  decide  only  “the 
rights of individuals,” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 
170  (1803),  and  that  federal  courts  exercise  “their  proper 
function in a limited and separated government,” Roberts, 
Article  III  Limits  on  Statutory  Standing,  42  Duke  L. J. 
1219, 1224 (1993).  Under Article III, federal courts do not 
adjudicate  hypothetical  or  abstract  disputes.    Federal 
courts do not possess a roving commission to publicly opine
on every legal question.  Federal courts do not exercise gen-
eral  legal  oversight  of  the  Legislative  and  Executive
Branches, or of private entities.  And federal courts do not 
issue advisory opinions.  As Madison explained in Philadel-
phia, federal courts instead decide only matters “of a Judi-
ciary Nature.”  2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, 
p. 430 (M. Farrand ed. 1966). 

In sum, under Article III, a federal court may resolve only 
“a  real  controversy  with  real  impact  on  real  persons.” 
American  Legion  v.  American  Humanist  Assn.,  588  U. S. 
___, ___ (2019) (GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment) (slip
op., at 10). 

B 
The  question  in  this  case  focuses  on  the  Article  III  re-
quirement that the plaintiff ’s injury in fact be “concrete”—
that is, “real, and not abstract.”  Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 
U. S.  330,  340  (2016)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted); 
see Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U. S. 149, 158 
(2014);  Summers  v.  Earth  Island  Institute,  555  U. S.  488, 
493 (2009); Lujan, 504 U. S., at 560; Schlesinger v. Reserv-
ists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U. S. 208, 220–221 (1974). 
What makes a harm concrete for purposes of Article III? 
As a general matter, the Court has explained that “history
and tradition offer a meaningful guide to the types of cases
that  Article  III  empowers  federal  courts  to  consider.”