Add to ORKGMost commentators have critiqued the Supreme Court’s opinion in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins for failing to answer the question presented. But in important ways, the Spokeo opinion does not merely fail to speak—it affirmatively misspeaks. This essay suggests that underlying the Justices’ inability to see how standing law ought to apply to the facts in Spokeo is a failure to appreciate the power that consumer reports have over individuals’ life prospects today. Worse, the Justices’ unawareness of their own ignorance leads them to afford Congress little deference in identifying injuries occurring in our new information society. Their meta-ignorance also induces the Justices to credit their own judgment over the judgment of the market about what con...
In Spokeo v. Robbins, the Supreme Court held that, to establish Article III standing to bring suit i...
The Supreme Court recently handed down the landmark decision of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, holding that...
This commentary employs a fictional debate to explore the issues raised by the Supreme Court’s decis...
Most commentators have critiqued the Supreme Court’s opinion in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins for failing t...
The Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins does not fully resolve when an intangibl...
In Spokeo v Robins, the Supreme Court confronted one of the harder questions of its intricate law of...
For almost five decades, the injury-in-fact requirement has been a mainstay of Article III standing ...
For almost five decades, the injury-in-fact requirement has been a mainstay of Article III standing ...
In Spokeo v. Robins, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the following question: Does Co...
The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez has dramatically upended standing doct...
The Supreme Court, in the 2016 case Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, announced a framework for determining wh...
Standing is a precondition for any suit brought in federal court. This Commentary analyzes a Supreme...
The Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins and three other cases involving cl...
Through the standing doctrine, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken a new step toward severely limiting ...
In Spokeo v. Robins, the U.S. Supreme Court held that courts may no longer infer the existence of an...
In Spokeo v. Robbins, the Supreme Court held that, to establish Article III standing to bring suit i...
The Supreme Court recently handed down the landmark decision of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, holding that...
This commentary employs a fictional debate to explore the issues raised by the Supreme Court’s decis...
Most commentators have critiqued the Supreme Court’s opinion in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins for failing t...
The Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins does not fully resolve when an intangibl...
In Spokeo v Robins, the Supreme Court confronted one of the harder questions of its intricate law of...
For almost five decades, the injury-in-fact requirement has been a mainstay of Article III standing ...
For almost five decades, the injury-in-fact requirement has been a mainstay of Article III standing ...
In Spokeo v. Robins, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the following question: Does Co...
The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez has dramatically upended standing doct...
The Supreme Court, in the 2016 case Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, announced a framework for determining wh...
Standing is a precondition for any suit brought in federal court. This Commentary analyzes a Supreme...
The Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins and three other cases involving cl...
Through the standing doctrine, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken a new step toward severely limiting ...
In Spokeo v. Robins, the U.S. Supreme Court held that courts may no longer infer the existence of an...
In Spokeo v. Robbins, the Supreme Court held that, to establish Article III standing to bring suit i...
The Supreme Court recently handed down the landmark decision of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, holding that...
This commentary employs a fictional debate to explore the issues raised by the Supreme Court’s decis...