Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-297_4g25.pdf
Page Number: 37

6 

TRANSUNION LLC v. RAMIREZ 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

[damage].”  Spokeo, 578 U. S., at 346 (THOMAS, J., concur-
ring) (citing Robert Marys’s Case, 9 Co. Rep. 111b, 112b, 77 
Eng. Rep. 895, 898–899 (K. B. 1613); brackets in original). 
This  distinction  mattered  not  only  for  traditional  com-
mon-law rights, but also for newly created statutory ones. 
The First Congress enacted a law defining copyrights and
gave copyright holders the right to sue infringing persons 
in  order  to  recover  statutory  damages,  even  if  the  holder
“could not show monetary loss.”  Muransky v. Godiva Choc-
olatier, Inc., 979 F. 3d 917, 972 (CA11 2020) (Jordan, J., dis-
senting) (citing Act of May 31, 1790, §2, 1 Stat. 124–125). 
In the patent context, a defendant challenged an infringe-
ment suit brought under a similar law.  Along the lines of
what TransUnion argues here, the infringer contended that
“the making of a machine cannot be an offence, because no 
action lies, except for actual damage, and there can be no 
actual damages, or even a rule for damages, for an infringe-
ment  by  making  a  machine.”    Whittemore  v.  Cutter,  29 
F. Cas.  1120,  1121  (No. 17,600)  (CC  Mass.  1813).    Riding
circuit, Justice Story rejected that theory, noting that the
plaintiff could sue in federal court merely by alleging a vio-
lation of a private right: “[W]here the law gives an action
for a particular act, the doing of that act imports of itself a 
damage  to the  party”  because  “[e]very  violation  of  a  right 
imports some damage.”  Ibid.; cf. Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. 
477,  494  (1851)  (patent  rights  “did  not  exist  at  common 
law”).2 

—————— 

2 The “public rights” terminology has been used to refer to two different 
concepts.  In one context, these rights are “ ‘take[n] from the public’ ”—
like  the  right  to  make,  use,  or  sell  an  invention—and  “ ‘bestow[ed]  . . . 
upon the’ ” individual, like a “decision to grant a public franchise.”  Oil 
States  Energy  Services,  LLC v. Greene’s Energy  Group,  LLC,  584  U. S. 
___, ___–___ (2018) (slip op., at 6–7).  Disputes with the Government over 
these rights generally can be resolved “outside of an Article III court.” 
Id.,  at  ___–___  (slip  op.,  at  9–10).    Here,  in  contrast,  the  term  “public 
rights” refers to duties owed collectively to the community.  For example,