Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 70

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

9 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

all actions, and without [both of] these, no action lieth.”  Ca-
ble v. Rogers, 3 Bulst. 311, 312, 81 Eng. Rep. 259.  In the 
18th  century,  many  common-law  courts  ceased  requiring 
damnum in suits alleging violations of private rights.  See, 
e.g., Ashby v. White, 2 Raym. Ld. 938, 92 Eng. Rep. 126, 137
(K. B.) (Holt, C. J.), aff’d, 3 Raym. Ld. 320, 92 Eng. Rep. 710, 
712  (H. L. 1703);  see  also  Webb  v.  Portland  Mfg.  Co.,  29 
F. Cas. 506, 507 (No. 17,322) (CC Me. 1838) (Story, J.).  But 
they continued to require legal injury, adhering to the “ob-
vious” and “ancient maxim” that one’s real-world damages
alone  cannot  “lay  the  foundation  of  an  action.”  Parker  v. 
Griswold, 17 Conn. 288, 302–303 (1846).  Thus, a plaintiff 
had  to  assert  “[a]n  injury,  [which,]  legally  speaking,  con-
sists of a wrong done to a person, or, in other words, a vio-
lation of his right.”  Id., at 302. 

This  brief  historical  review  demonstrates  that  third-
party standing is inconsistent with the case-or-controversy
requirement of Article III.  When a private plaintiff seeks 
to vindicate someone else’s legal injury, he has no private 
right of his own genuinely at stake in the litigation.  Even 
if the plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of another’s 
legal injury, he has no standing to challenge a law that does 
not violate his own private rights. 

C 
Applying these principles to the case at hand, plaintiffs 
lack standing under Article III and we, in turn, lack juris-
diction to decide these cases.  Thus, “[i]n light of th[e] ‘over-
riding and time-honored concern about keeping the Judici-
ary’s  power  within  its  proper  constitutional  sphere,  we
must put aside the natural urge to proceed directly to the 
merits  of  [an]  important  dispute  and  to  “settle”  it  for  the
sake  of  convenience  and  efficiency.’ ”  Hollingsworth  v. 
Perry,  570  U. S.  693,  704–705  (2013)  (ROBERTS,  C. J.,  for 
the  Court)  (quoting  Raines  v.  Byrd,  521  U. S.  811,  820 
(1997)).