Abstract
The Supreme Court, in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, created additional standing hurdles by requiring plaintiffs to identify a common law historic-analogue when alleging a statutory harm. In doing so, the Court arguably limited informational standing—a unique Article III standing theory whereby plaintiffs may establish an injury for failure to receive information—because informational injuries did not exist at common law.
This Comment asks whether informational standing survives in a post-TransUnion universe, using 5 U.S.C. § 2954 and lower courts’ interpretation of TransUnion for guidance. The statute, § 2954, comes to light in a string of litigation involving the potential illegality of former president Trump’s lease of the Old Post Office Building in Washington, DC.
This Comment argues that § 2954 plaintiffs can sufficiently establish “downstream consequences” from their failure to receive information and therefore suffer an informational injury consistent with Article III. Additionally, this Comment recommends that lower courts differentiate between TransUnion’s “historic-analogue test” and “downstream consequences” test when deciding whether plaintiffs have an informational injury to ensure the survival of informational standing.
