The State Of Article III Standing 3 Years After Spokeo

Law360 (June 13, 2019, 4:09 PM EDT) -- Three years ago on May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark Spokeo v. Robins decision, which held that the standing requirements under Article III of the U.S. Constitution require a plaintiff to establish a "concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation."[1] After Spokeo, as one court put it, "there is no such thing as an 'anything-hurts-so-long-as-Congress-says-it-hurts theory of Article III injury.'"[2]

In this article, we first examine how courts have applied Spokeo to violations of statutory provisions designed to protect substantive and procedural rights. Next, we detail an open question after Spokeo: what role congressional...

Stay ahead of the curve

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.

  • Access to case data within articles (numbers, filings, courts, nature of suit, and more.)
  • Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
  • Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more!


Hello! I'm Law360's automated support bot.

How can I help you today?

For example, you can type:
  • I forgot my password
  • I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email
  • How do I sign up for a newsletter?
Ask a question!