October Term 2011 · Docket 10-708
Does a statutory violation alone prove injury for damages?
the sides that brought the case argue a legal breach does not equal harm. the opposing sides claim the law presumes injury exists.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Panner stated Article III requires a private plaintiff to show injury-in-fact.
He argued factual injury does not automatically follow from a statutory violation.
Mr. Panner claimed a violation of a duty is not itself an injury.
Justice Sotomayor questioned if the argument applies to statutory damages broadly.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 29-49 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 29-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 41-9 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 41-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 43-43 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 43-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 19-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-5 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-31
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests whether a plaintiff must prove actual harm. the sides that brought the case say a legal breach is not injury. the opposing sides say the statute presumes injury exists.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 29-49 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 29-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 41-9 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 41-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 45-3
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 28, 2011.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 45-49
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the Court to require proof of actual harm.
the opposing sides want the Court to accept a presumption of injury.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 29-49 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 29-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 41-9 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 41-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 45-3
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue Article III requires showing the conduct made the plaintiff worse off.
the opposing sides argue Congress intended to protect against potential harm from kickbacks.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 29-49 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 29-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 41-9 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 41-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 45-3
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked if the position applies to statutory damages.
Justice Ginsburg asked why Congress acted on potential harm from kickbacks.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 43-43 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 43-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 19-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-5 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-31
Why it matters
This dispute defines the minimum proof needed for private lawsuits. It shapes how courts handle statutory violations. It affects the burden of proof for plaintiffs nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 29-49 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 29-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 41-9 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 41-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 45-3
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 43-43 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 43-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 19-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-5 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-31
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 29-49 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 29-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 41-9 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 41-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 29-49 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 29-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 41-9 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 41-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 45-3
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.