The Supreme Court handed down its decision on June 25, 2021. In a 5–4 decision, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case for further review. The majority opinion was written by Justice
Brett Kavanaugh and joined by Chief Justice
John Roberts and Justices
Samuel Alito,
Neil Gorsuch, and
Amy Coney Barrett. The majority found that of the class members, only 1,853 - those whose credit reports had been shared with third-party businesses - had shown any, physical, monetary, or various intangible harms including reputational harm to have Article III standing under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
[1] Kavanaugh wrote "Only those plaintiffs who have been concretely harmed by a defendant’s statutory violation may sue that private defendant over that violation in federal court."
[2] In addition, the court found that only Ramirez had a right to sue for damages with regard to two other claims, both stemming from allegations that TransUnion's mailings were improperly formatted, since none of the other plaintiffs had shown that they had even opened the mailings.
[2]
Justice
Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent which was joined by Justices
Stephen Breyer,
Sonia Sotomayor and
Elena Kagan. Thomas wrote that the courts had long favored injuries for violations of "private rights" that would have allowed the class-action lawsuit to proceed, but stated "Despite Congress’s judgment that such misdeeds deserve redress, the majority decides that TransUnion’s actions are so insignificant that the Constitution prohibits consumers from vindicating their rights in federal court."
[2] Justice Kagan also wrote a dissent, joined by Breyer and Sotomayor. Kagan agreed on Thomas' conclusion and that the majority opinion "transforms standing law from a doctrine of judicial modesty into a tool of judicial aggrandizement".
[2] However, Kagan stated that the Supreme Court had previously concluded in
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins that one must show specific harm to have standing, though in practice, the situation would still resolve in the same manner as Thomas outlined.
[2]
harvardlawreview.org
Opening Arguments