James Hannaway
87 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 706
In Spokeo v. Robins, the Supreme Court attempted to resolve a tension that has existed since the birth of modern Article III standing. On one hand, Congress has always been able to create legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing to sue. On the other hand, to satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III, a plaintiff always needs to allege an injury in fact, which exists independent of the law. Before Spokeo, the Court offered contradictory answers as to whether Congress can create legal rights which would suffice, in and of themselves, to create an injury in fact every time a plaintiff alleged the violation of his or her legal rights. In Spokeo, the Court muddied the waters even more. This Note conducts a content analysis of circuit court decisions in the wake of Spokeo to show that courts find Congress’s judgment relevant to injury-in-fact analysis in a majority of cases. This Note surveys how courts use various tools of statutory interpretation to determine Congress’s judgment, then suggests a uniform framework for injury-in-fact analysis that can achieve sensible and consistent results.
