Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-297_4g25.pdf
Page Number: 42.0

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

11 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

any showing of concrete injury, we were to entertain citizen
suits  to  vindicate  the  public’s  nonconcrete  interest  in  the 
proper administration of the laws.’ ”  Id., at 497 (emphasis 
added; brackets omitted).

In Spokeo, the Court built on this approach.  Based on a 
few  sentences  from  Lujan  and  Summers,  the  Court  con-
cluded that a plaintiff does not automatically “satisf[y] the
injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a per-
son a statutory right and purports to authorize that person
to sue to vindicate that right.”  Spokeo, 578 U. S., at 341. 
But the Court made clear that “Congress is well positioned 
to identify intangible harms that meet minimum Article III 
requirements” and explained that “the violation of a proce-
dural right granted by statute can be sufficient in some cir-
cumstances  to  constitute  injury  in  fact.”    Id.,  at  341,  342 
(emphasis added).

Reconciling  these  statements  has  proved  to  be  a  chal-
lenge.  See  Sierra,  996  F. 3d,  at  1116–1117  (Newsom,  J., 
concurring) (collecting examples of inconsistent decisions). 
But “[t]he historical restrictions on standing” offer consid-
erable guidance.  Thole, 590 U. S., at ___ (THOMAS, J., con-
curring) (slip op., at 1).  A statute that creates a public right 
plus a citizen-suit cause of action is insufficient by itself to
establish standing.  See Lujan, 504 U. S., at 576.4  A statute 
that creates a private right and a cause of action, however, 
does  gives  plaintiffs  an  adequate  interest  in  vindicating 
their private rights in federal court.  See Thole, 590 U. S., 
at ___ (THOMAS, J., concurring); Spokeo, 578 U. S., at ___– 
—————— 

4 But see Caminker, Comment, The Constitutionality of Qui Tam Ac-
tions,  99  Yale  L. J.  341,  342,  n. 3  (1989)  (“Six  statutes  [enacted  by  the 
First Congress] imposed penalties and/or forfeitures for conduct injuri-
ous to the general public and expressly authorized suits by private in-
formers, with the recovery being shared between the informer and the
United  States”);  McCulloch  v.  Maryland,  4  Wheat.  316,  317,  321–322 
(1819) (reviewing “an action of debt brought by the defendant in error . . . 
who sued as well for himself as for the State of Maryland . . . to recover 
certain penalties”).