Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins
| Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins | |
|---|---|
| Argued November 2, 2015 Decided May 16, 2016 | |
| Full case name | Spokeo, Inc., Petitioner v. Thomas Robins |
| Docket no. | 13-1339 |
| Citations | 578 U.S. 330 (more) 136 S. Ct. 1540; 194 L. Ed. 2d 635 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Finding standing, 742 F.3d 409 (9th Cir. 2014); cert. granted, 135 S. Ct. 1892 (2015). |
| Subsequent | Finding standing, 867 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2017); cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 931 (2018). |
| Holding | |
| Because the Ninth Circuit failed to consider both the concrete and particularized aspects of the injury-in-fact requirement, its Article III standing analysis was incomplete. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Alito, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Kagan |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Dissent | Ginsburg, joined by Sotomayor |
| Laws applied | |
| Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. | |
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court vacated and remanded a ruling by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the basis that the Ninth Circuit had not properly determined whether the plaintiff has suffered an "injury-in-fact" when analyzing whether he had standing to bring his case in federal court. The Court did not discuss whether "the Ninth Circuit’s ultimate conclusion — that Robins adequately alleged an injury in fact — was correct."