Advertisement
Landmark Ruling in TransUnion v. Ramirez: For Damages Suits, “Risk of Future Harm” No Longer Supports Article III Standing in Federal Court Thursday, July 1, 2021
The Supreme Court in
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez on June 25, 2021 dramatically reorganized and narrowed the Article III landscape for constitutionally cognizable damage suits in federal court. Suits for damages based solely on “risk of future” harm, the Court ruled, are not “Cases” or “Controversies” under the U.S. Constitution and no longer meet what were long thought to be minimal “injury in fact” requirements for a plaintiff to establish standing to sue.
Describing the new standard as “No concrete harm, no standing,” in the 5-4 majority opinion authored by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court overturned a $60 million jury verdict (later reduced to $40 million) in favor of a certified class of 8,185 individuals claiming injury from TransUnion’s process for flagging individuals
TransUnion Hollows Out Class Members Who Have Not Suffered A Concrete Injury | SmithAmundsen LLC
jdsupra.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from jdsupra.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Supreme Court Provides Clarity on Injury Necessary to Bring Suit
natlawreview.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from natlawreview.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Advertisement
Landmark Ruling in TransUnion v. Ramirez: For Damages Suits, “Risk of Future Harm” is No Longer Concrete Harm to Support Article III Standing in Federal Court Tuesday, June 29, 2021
Over a strong dissent from Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court in
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez on June 25, 2021 dramatically reorganized and narrowed the Article III landscape for constitutionally cognizable damage suits in federal court. Suits for damages based solely on “risk of future” harm, the Court ruled, are not “Cases” or “Controversies” under the U.S. Constitution and no longer meet what were long thought to be minimal “injury in fact” requirements for a plaintiff to establish standing to sue.