Bost v. Illinois Bd. of Elections · ¶36
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 3. 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 English or…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.