The US Supreme Court [official website] on Monday remanded [opinion, PDF] the class action case Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins [SCOTUSblog materials] to the lower court for further review. In a 6-2 ruling, the court found that the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit erred in its analysis of whether the plaintiff had standing. The question before the court was whether Congress may confer Article III standing [Cornell LII backgrounder] upon a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm and who therefore could not otherwise invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, by authorizing a private right of action based on a bare violation of a federal statute. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority:

[The Ninth Circuit’s] analysis was incomplete. As we have explained in our prior opinions, the injury-in-fact requirement requires a plaintiff to allege an injury that is both “concrete and particularized.” … The Ninth Circuit’s analysis focused on the second characteristic (particularity), but it overlooked the first (concreteness). We therefore vacate the decision below and remand for the Ninth Circuit to consider both aspects of the injury-in-fact requirement.

Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Plaintiff Thomas Robins seeks statutory damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act [text] for a technical violation of the statute that did not cause him any harm. Robins alleges that defendant Spokeo, Inc. [corporate website], a persons search website, published false information about him. Under the Act, an individual may seek recovery for a bare violation. The case thus raises the constitutional issue of whether the Act confers standing on a plaintiff who alleges a violation of a federal statute but who does not allege any resulting injury. The court heard arguments in the case in November after granting certiorari [JURIST reports] in April of last year.