Second Circuit Review

Court Applies Different Principles When Interpreting Injury in Fact

, New York Law Journal

   | 1 Comments

In their Second Circuit Review, Martin Flumenbaum and Brad S. Karp write: Although it is "first and foremost of standing's three elements," in the words of the Supreme Court, injury in fact is not always analyzed consistently: Two opinions handed down in May and June by the circuit appear to apply different principles in interpreting injury in fact. Perhaps as a result of their different analyses, the opinions ordered different appellate dispositions.

This premium content is reserved for New York Law Journal subscribers.

Continue reading by getting started with a subscription.

Already a subscriber? Log in now

What's being said

  • Matthew Siegel

    However one chooses to interpret and apply "injury in fact" to establish standing under Article III as delineated by the authors, it manifestly appears without further ado that Whalen suffered from the infirmity of "damnum absque injuria," whereas John did not!

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202793868761

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.