Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-297_4g25.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

II, we summarize the requirements of Article III standing—
in particular, the requirement  that plaintiffs demonstrate a 
“concrete harm.”  In Part III, we then apply the concrete-harm
requirement to the plaintiffs’ lawsuit against TransUnion. 

A 
The  “law  of  Art.  III  standing  is  built  on  a  single  basic
idea—the idea of separation of powers.”  Raines v. Byrd, 521 
U. S.  811,  820  (1997)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted). 
Separation of powers “was not simply an abstract generali-
zation in the minds of the Framers: it was woven into the 
document that they drafted in Philadelphia in the summer 
of 1787.”  INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919, 946 (1983) (inter-
nal quotation marks omitted).

Therefore, we start with the text of the Constitution.  Ar-
ticle III confines the federal judicial power to the resolution 
of  “Cases”  and  “Controversies.”  For  there  to  be  a  case  or 
controversy  under  Article  III,  the  plaintiff  must  have  a 
“ ‘personal  stake’ ”  in  the  case—in  other  words,  standing. 
Raines,  521  U. S.,  at  819.    To  demonstrate  their  personal 
stake,  plaintiffs  must  be  able  to  sufficiently  answer  the 
question:  “ ‘What’s  it  to  you?’ ”    Scalia,  The  Doctrine  of 
Standing as an Essential Element of the Separation of Pow-
ers, 17 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 881, 882 (1983).

To answer that question in a way sufficient to establish
standing, a plaintiff must show (i) that he suffered an injury
in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or immi-
nent; (ii) that the injury was likely caused by the defendant;
and (iii) that the injury would likely be redressed by judicial
relief.  Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560– 
561 (1992).  If “the plaintiff does not claim to have suffered 
an injury that the defendant caused and the court can rem-
edy, there is no case or controversy for the federal court to
resolve.”  Casillas  v.  Madison  Avenue  Assocs.,  Inc.,  926 
F. 3d 329, 333 (CA7 2019) (Barrett, J.).