Kavanaugh wasted no time getting straight to the point. “For there to be a case or controversy under Article III,” the judge wrote, “the plaintiff must have a ‘personal interest’ in the case – in other words, have standing to to act”.
Column by Thomas M. Boyd: Supreme Court ruling clarifies “standing” | Chroniclers
The court, he added, did not issue “an open invitation to federal courts to relax Article III on the basis of contemporary and evolving beliefs about the types of lawsuits to be heard by federal courts.” .
Federal courts, he continued, “do not adjudicate hypothetical or abstract disputes” and Congress cannot “create harm by using its legislative power to transform something that is not in the least harmful. into something that is ”.
If ‘tangible harm’ was not required by law, he added, ‘Congress could allow virtually any citizen to sue for damages against virtually any defendant who would have. violated virtually any federal law. “
That said, Kavanaugh immediately ratified the status of 1,853 of the original class of 8,185 which had been certified by both the District Court and the 9th Circuit. Their inaccurate reports, including those of Ramirez, “were released to third parties. [and] in fact suffered tangible harm under Article III.
He then struck down the standing of the remaining 6,332 Class Members, dismissing their allegation of possible “future harm” by concluding that “mere risk of future harm, on its own, cannot be considered tangible harm”.