Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins
Supreme Court of the United States
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
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan
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.^[1] The Court did not discuss whether "the Ninth Circuit’s ultimate conclusion — that Robins adequately alleged an injury in fact — was correct."^[2]