Roundtable: Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins
This Roundtable considers Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, which will be argued before the Supreme Court on November 2, 2015. In Spokeo, the Court will consider whether Congress may confer Article III standing upon plaintiffs who suffer no concrete injury by vesting them with a private right of action to enforce a statutory requirement. The case may have broad-reaching impacts upon standing doctrine because a decision for the petitioner would substantially restrict Congress’s ability to provide for enforcement of statutory rights when they are not accompanied by an “injury in fact.” At its heart, Spokeo is a separation-of-powers case focused on the tension between Congress’s legislative power to create rights and enforcement mechanisms and the Court’s power to define and enforce Article III’s standing requirements.
Professors Heather Elliott, Andrew Hessick, Jonathan Siegel, Maxwell Stearns, Joan Steinman, and Howard Wasserman have each considered the issue and offer their views on how the Court might—or should—approach this case in their essays below.
Balancing As Well As Separating: Congress’s Authority to Recognize New Legal Rights
PDF· Heather Elliott · 68 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 181 (2015).
Injury in Fact and the Structure of Legal Revolutions
PDF· Jonathan R. Siegel · 68 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 207 (2015).
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins and the Constitutional Foundations of Statutory Standing
PDF· Maxwell L. Stearns · 68 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 221 (2015).
Fletcherian Standing, Merits, and Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins
PDF· Howard M. Wasserman · 68 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 257 (2015).
Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar | Comptroller v. Wynne | Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. | Golan v. Holder | Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. | Skilling v. United States | Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board