October Term 2015 · Docket 13-1339
Does a statutory violation alone prove concrete injury for standing?
The dispute centers on whether a plaintiff must show tangible harm beyond a statutory violation to sue.
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. Stewart cited Defenders of Wildlife to define injury in fact.
He stated injury must be concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent.
Mr. Pincus argued the constitutional minimum is injury in fact.
He noted Congress can elevate de facto injuries to legal status in Lujan.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 16-42 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 16-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-44 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 46-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 46-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 50-38 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 50-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 52-4 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 52-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 46-48 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 46-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 52-8 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 52-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 46-26 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 46-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 12-26 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 12-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 38-50 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 38-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 4-20 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 4-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 32-12 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 32-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 8-26 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 8-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 64, lines 26-36 — Transcript, file page 64, lines 26-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 64, lines 50-4 — Transcript, file page 64, lines 50-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 18-28 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 18-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 48-6 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 48-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 10-18 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 10-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 50-6 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 50-6
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Spokeo argues a statutory violation is not enough for standing. Robins argues the violation itself is a concrete injury.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 16-42 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 16-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-44 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 46-26 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 46-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 4-20 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 4-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 32-12 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 32-12
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 2, 2015.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 8-26 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 8-26
What each side wants
Spokeo wants the Court to require proof of tangible harm beyond a statutory violation.
Robins wants the Court to accept a statutory violation as sufficient proof of injury.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 16-42 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 16-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-44 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 46-26 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 46-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 4-20 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 4-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 32-12 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 32-12
What each side says
Spokeo argues that a legal violation does not automatically create a concrete injury.
Robins argues that Congress can define a statutory violation as a concrete injury.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 16-42 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 16-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-44 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 46-26 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 46-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 4-20 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 4-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 32-12 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 32-12
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked if non-property cases without economic harm are irrelevant.
Justice Kagan asked why false credit report information is not a concrete injury.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 46-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 46-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 50-38 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 50-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 52-4 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 52-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 46-48 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 46-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 52-8 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 52-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 12-26 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 12-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 38-50 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 38-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 8-26 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 8-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 64, lines 26-36 — Transcript, file page 64, lines 26-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 64, lines 50-4 — Transcript, file page 64, lines 50-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 18-28 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 18-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 48-6 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 48-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 10-18 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 10-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 50-6 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 50-6
Why it matters
This case defines the minimum injury required to sue in federal court. It determines whether statutory violations alone grant access to the judiciary. The outcome shapes the scope of consumer protection laws. It affects how courts interpret congressional definitions of harm.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 16-42 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 16-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-44 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 46-26 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 46-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 4-20 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 4-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 32-12 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 32-12
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 46-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 46-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 50-38 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 50-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 52-4 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 52-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 46-48 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 46-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 52-8 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 52-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 12-26 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 12-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 38-50 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 38-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 8-26 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 8-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 64, lines 26-36 — Transcript, file page 64, lines 26-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 64, lines 50-4 — Transcript, file page 64, lines 50-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 18-28 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 18-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 48-6 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 48-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 10-18 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 10-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 50-6 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 50-6
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 29, lines 16-42 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 16-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-44 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 46-26 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 46-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 4-20 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 4-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 32-12 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 32-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 16-42 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 16-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-44 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 46-26 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 46-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 4-20 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 4-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 32-12 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 32-12
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.