Also known as: actual or imminent injury · actual or imminent harm · imminent injury · injury in fact
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A component of the Article III injury-in-fact test requiring that the plaintiff's harm either be presently occurring or carry a realistic threat of immediate occurrence rather than remaining merely possible at some indefinite future time.
Technician Luis left a device unsecured on a walkway inside a fenced plant. The device fell and startled contractor Dana, who dropped a wrench that struck visitor Carla on a public sidewalk. Carla sued the plant owner for negligence. Because Carla stood outside the range of reasonably foreseeable risk at the time of the negligent act, the owner owed her no duty and escaped liability even though she suffered injury in fact.
Lena discovered that ProfileHub listed an incorrect age and employment history in violation of a federal data accuracy statute. She had never applied for a job, lost money, or identified any employer who viewed the profile. Lena sued for statutory damages. The court dismissed the complaint because the bare statutory violation created no concrete or particularized injury and therefore supplied no injury in fact.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Members of Defenders of Wildlife submitted affidavits stating they had visited overseas sites where U.S.-funded projects threatened endangered species and that they hoped to return someday. They sued to compel consultation under the Endangered Species Act. The Court held that the indefinite plans to return did not establish an actual or imminent injury and therefore the organization lacked standing.
Lucas owned beachfront lots rendered unbuildable by a new coastal regulation. He had drawn house plans years earlier but testified he was in no hurry to build because the land was appreciating. Lucas sued for a temporary taking. The Court noted that his lack of concrete, imminent plans to develop the property prevented any finding of actual injury sufficient to support the claim.
Voters challenged provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act on the ground that the statute diluted their voting power. They alleged no particularized harm beyond the general interest shared by all citizens in lawful elections. The Court held that such undifferentiated grievances do not satisfy the actual or imminent injury requirement and therefore the plaintiffs lacked standing.
Americans United objected to a federal transfer of surplus property to a religious college. The organization alleged that the transfer violated the Establishment Clause and offended its members' beliefs. The Court held that the asserted injury was merely a generalized grievance rather than an actual or imminent invasion of a legally protected interest and therefore the plaintiffs lacked standing.
It ensures the injury is not merely possible or remote. A plaintiff must show either a present injury or a realistic threat of immediate harm rather than a speculative future event.
No. A bare procedural violation without any concrete or particularized harm or material risk of harm does not create standing even when Congress authorizes suit.
Plans must be definite and immediate. Vague statements that a plaintiff intends to return to an affected area someday are insufficient. The plaintiff must identify specific dates or imminent visits.
Yes. Standing must exist when the complaint is filed and must continue through appeal. An injury that becomes moot after suit is filed will defeat jurisdiction.
…description of concrete plans, or indeed even any specification of when the some day will bedo not support a finding of the actual or imminent' injury that our cases require." 504 U. S., at 564. The Court circumvents Defenders of Wildlife by deciding to resolve this case as if it arrived on the pleadings alone. But it did not.…