Court Opinion

ID: 9435381
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 00:03:21.039074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:59.995388
License: Public Domain

Justice Kennedy,
concurring.
I join in full the opinion of the Court. As the opinion explains, “deprivation of a procedural right without some concrete interest that is affected by the deprivation — a procedural right in vacuo — is insufficient to create Article III standing.” Ante, at 496. The procedural injury must “impair a separate concrete interest.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 572 (1992).
This case would present different considerations if Congress had sought to provide redress for a concrete injury “giv[ing] rise to a case or controversy where none existed before.” Id., at 580 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Nothing in the statute at issue here, however, indicates Congress intended to identify or confer some interest separate and apart from a procedural right.