Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-297_4g25.pdf
Page Number: 16

12 

TRANSUNION LLC v. RAMIREZ 

Opinion of the Court 

plaintiff in Hawaii. 

Even  if  Congress  affords  both  hypothetical  plaintiffs  a
cause  of  action  (with  statutory  damages  available)  to  sue 
over  the  defendant’s  legal  violation,  Article  III  standing 
doctrine  sharply  distinguishes  between  those  two  scenar-
ios.  The first lawsuit may of course proceed in federal court 
because  the  plaintiff  has  suffered  concrete  harm  to  her 
property.  But the second lawsuit may not proceed because 
that  plaintiff  has  not  suffered  any  physical,  monetary,  or 
cognizable  intangible  harm  traditionally  recognized  as 
providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts.  An un-
injured plaintiff who sues in those circumstances is, by def-
inition, not seeking to remedy any harm to herself but in-
stead is merely seeking to ensure a defendant’s “compliance 
with regulatory law” (and, of course, to obtain some money
via  the  statutory  damages).    Spokeo,  578  U. S.,  at  345 
(THOMAS,  J.,  concurring)  (internal  quotation  marks  omit-
ted);  see  Steel  Co.,  523  U. S.,  at  106–107.    Those  are  not 
grounds for Article III standing.1 
—————— 

1 The lead dissent notes that the terminology of injury in fact became
prevalent only in the latter half of the 20th century.  That is unsurprising
because until the 20th century, Congress did not often afford federal “cit-
izen suit”-style causes of action to private plaintiffs who did not suffer 
concrete harms.  For example, until the 20th century, Congress generally 
did not create “citizen suit” causes of action for private plaintiffs to sue 
the  Government.    See  Magill,  Standing  for  the  Public,  95  Va.  L. Rev.
1131, 1186–1187 (2009).  Moreover, until Abbott Laboratories v. Gard-
ner, 387 U. S. 136 (1967), a plaintiff often could not bring a pre-enforce-
ment suit against a Government agency or official under the Adminis-
trative Procedure Act arguing that an agency rule was unlawful; instead, 
a  party  could  raise  such  an  argument  only  in  an  enforcement  action. 
Likewise, until the 20th century, Congress rarely created “citizen suit”-
style causes of action for suits against private parties by private plain-
tiffs who had not suffered a concrete harm.  All told, until the 20th cen-
tury, this Court had little reason to emphasize the injury-in-fact require-
ment because, until the 20th century, there were relatively few instances 
where litigants without concrete injuries had a cause of action to sue in
federal court.  The situation has changed markedly, especially over the 
last 50 years or so.  During that time, Congress has created many novel