Access to Justice

TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez

In TransUnion, LLC v. Ramirez, the Supreme Court is considering when individuals whose statutory rights were violated by a private company—putting them in danger of harms that the statute was meant to shield them from—have standing to pursue a legal remedy against that company.

Case Summary

TransUnion, one of the nation’s largest credit reporting companies, employed shoddy procedures that mislabeled thousands of people as terrorists or national security threats in reports that were readily available to their creditors and potential employers. TransUnion then sent confusing and incomplete mailings about its designations when those individuals requested their credit reports. One victim of this practice, Sergio Ramirez, sued TransUnion on behalf of a class of similarly affected individuals, and a jury found that TransUnion willfully violated multiple consumer protections of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Seeking to overturn the jury’s damages award, TransUnion argued that many of the plaintiffs did not suffer any “concrete” injury that gives them standing to sue under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

Ruling against TransUnion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained that Congress passed the FCRA to prevent the harms that result from flawed credit reporting, in part by providing consumers with the means to dispute inaccurate information. The court then concluded that TransUnion created a material risk of harm to those interests through its violations of the FCRA, inflicting a concrete injury on the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court later agreed to review this decision.

CAC filed an amicus curiae brief urging the Court to affirm the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. Our brief makes two key points. First, while TransUnion claims that many of the plaintiffs suffered no “concrete” injury from its mislabeling of them as terrorists or from the confusing mailings it sent them, TransUnion provides no standard for determining what constitutes a “concrete” injury. By dismissing Congress’s decision to vest consumers with certain legal rights in the FCRA, and by asking the Court to engage in a standardless evaluation of “real world” harm, TransUnion’s position would expand the power of the judiciary at the expense of the elected branches, restricting Congress’s authority to define new legal rights and remedies.

Second, our brief explains that it is well within Congress’s power to establish new legal rights that protect Americans from being put at risk of harms that Congress wishes to avert. Article III of the Constitution, from which the requirement of standing derives, was not originally understood to require any specific type of “real world” damage in order to invoke the power of the federal courts. Instead, by limiting the judiciary to resolving “cases” and “controversies,” Article III required only the deprivation of a legal right. It did not require any additional harm beyond the deprivation of that right. As our brief describes, early American legal precedents reflect the principle that every violation of a legal right warrants a remedy, and the Supreme Court has long recognized Congress’s power to create new legal rights through legislation—including legislation that protects individuals from being put in danger of harm. Because TransUnion’s violations of the law caused a material risk of harm to the very interests that Congress sought to protect in the FCRA, the plaintiffs have standing to seek redress for those violations in the courts.

Case Timeline

  • March 10, 2021

    CAC files amicus curiae brief

    Sup. Ct. Amicus Br.
  • March 30, 2021

    The Supreme Court hears oral argument

More from Access to Justice

Access to Justice
May 10, 2021

Qualified Immunity | Beyond Policing

In 1967, the Supreme Court created from whole cloth the legal doctrine of qualified immunity,...
By: Kristine A. Kippins
Access to Justice
March 11, 2021

Unlikely bedfellows in TransUnion SCOTUS case: Justice Thomas and class action fans

(Reuters) - As the U.S. Supreme Court gets ready in TransUnion v. Ramirez to revisit the vexing...
Access to Justice
March 4, 2021

Opinion: How the Supreme Court can help sexual assault survivors in the military

Washington Post
Last month, a U.S. Marine posted a video to TikTok sharing her frustration with authorities’ handling of...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Cox v. Wilson

In Cox v. Wilson, the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a police officer who shot an unarmed man, rendering him a quadriplegic, was immune from being sued for violating the Fourth Amendment.
Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Attala County, Mississippi Branch of the NAACP v. Evans

In Atalla County, Mississippi Branch of the NAACP v. Evans, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering when federal courts may adjudicate suits that challenge systematic racial discrimination in the jury-selection...
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Jane Doe v. United States

In Jane Doe v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to reconsider whether servicemembers may sue the United States for money damages pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) when they are injured...