Bost v. Illinois Bd. of Elections · ¶32
The Constitution limits federal courts to deciding “Cases” and “Controversies.” Art. III, § 2. To satisfy this requirement, a plaintiff must show (among other things) that he has suffered an actual injury—put colloquially, he must be able to answer the basic question “ `What's it to you?' ” Ante, at 76. We give content to that maxim by requiring a plaintiff to show a “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent” injury. Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 409 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). A “particularized” injury is a harm affecting a plaintiff “in a personal and individual way,” not a “generalized grievance” shared by the public. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U. S. 330, 339, and n. 7 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). A “concrete” injury is a nonabstract harm of the type “that has traditionally been regarded as providing a basis for a lawsuit in…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.