About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


68 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 207 (2015)
Injury in Fact and the Structure of Legal Revolutions

handle is hein.journals/valewenb68 and id is 207 raw text is: Injury in Fact and the Structure of Legal Revolutions Jonathan R. Siegel* I. INTRODUCTION ................................... ..... 207 II. THE STRUCTURE OF LEGAL REVOLUTIONS ... ............. 208 III. THE REVOLUTION IN STANDING .......................................... 211 A . P reced en t.................................................................. 2 12 B . T ra d itio n .................................................................. 2 14 C . P o licy ....................................................................... 2 1 6 IV. So WHAT'S GOING ON? ........................ ...... 218 V. CONCLUSION .................................................... 219 I. INTRODUCTION At first blush, the hardest question in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins' is how cert could have been granted. The case turns on an issue that has long been settled: Does a plaintiff have standing to sue if the plaintiff has suffered an invasion of his legal rights? Not only is the answer yes, but an invasion of the plaintiffs legal rights was traditionally the only basis that could give rise to standing.2 Today, a plaintiff has standing if the plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact, without regard to whether the defendant has invaded the plaintiffs legal rights,3 but the cases make clear that the new test supplements, and does not supplant, the traditional test.4 A plaintiff may have standing on either basis, and, in particular, a plaintiff may have standing because the defendant has violated a statutory right that Congress has conferred * Professor of Law and F. Elwood and Eleanor Davis Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School. 1. No. 13-1339 (U.S. petition for cert. filed May 1, 2014). Readers of this Roundtable are presumably familiar with the case, so this essay does not recite the facts. 2. Tenn. Elec. Power Co. v. TVA, 306 U.S. 118 (1938). 3. Ass'n of Data Processing Serv. Org. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 (1970). 4. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982). 207