Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-968_8nj9.pdf
Page Number: 23

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2021) 

7 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

15 C. B. N. S. 621, 143 Eng. Rep. 929 (C. P. 1864) (action for 
damages),  or  involved  prospective  harm  to  the  plaintiff ’s
reputation, see Marzetti v. Williams, 1 B. & Ad. 415, 420, 
109 Eng. Rep. 842, 844 (K. B. 1830) (bank’s failure to timely
pay  “was  injurious  to  the  character  of  the  plaintiff  in  his
trade”); see also C. Addison, Law of Torts 46–47 (1860) (def-
amation actionable without proof of damage). 

The  Court  also  appeals  to  “categorical”  and  “definitive” 
statements  by  Lord  Chief  Justice  Holt  and  Justice  Story,
that  “every  injury  imports  a  damage,”  Ashby  v.  White,  2 
Raym. Ld. 938, 955, 92 Eng. Rep. 126, 137 (K. B. 1703), and 
that  “[t]he  law  tolerates  no  farther  inquiry  than  whether 
there has been the violation of a right,” Webb v. Portland 
Mfg. Co., 29 F. Cas. 506, 508 (No. 17,322) (CC Me. 1838). 
Ante, at 8–9.  These statements, however, bear less weight
than the Court suggests.  Lord Holt was alone in dissent in 
Ashby (no shame there), and although his opinion has been
cited  favorably  by  subsequent  cases  and  commentary,  his 
colleagues disagreed with him.  The Court writes that “the 
House of Lords overturned the majority decision, thus vali-
dating  Lord  Holt’s  position,”  ante,  at  6,  but  the  House  of 
Lords likely paid scant attention to Lord Holt’s analysis.  It 
appears instead that the majority decision was reversed as
collateral damage in a Whig-Tory political dispute, and “lit-
tle weight was given to reasoning or eloquence.”  2 J. Camp-
bell,  Lives  of  the  Chief  Justices  of  England  160  (1849).
(Ashby had tried to vote for a Whig candidate, and his ballot 
had been rejected as part of a Tory election-rigging scheme. 
Id., at 156–157.)  Regardless, the House of Lords held that
Ashby “should recover his damages assessed by the jury” at 
trial, suggesting that the fact of injury alone did not  “im-
port” them.  Ashby v. White, 1 Bro. P. C. 62, 64, 1 Eng. Rep. 
417, 418 (1703).

Justice Story is no more helpful to the Court—despite the 
supposedly “definitive” nature of his statement in Webb— 
as he took the position elsewhere in his writings that a legal