| Abstrakt: |
Two decades after Justice William O. Douglas coined "injury in fact" as the token of admission to federal court under Article III, Justice Antonin Scalia sealed it into the constitutional canon in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. In the two decades since Lujan, Justice Scalia has thrown increasingly pointed barbs at the permissive standing doctrine of the Warren Court, maintaining it is founded on impermissible recognition of "Psychic Injury." Justice Scalia and his acolytes take the position that Article III requires a toughminded, common sense, and practical approach. Injuries in fact must be "tangible," "direct," "concrete," "de facto" realities in time and space, free from spooky entities like "Psychic Injury.". Albert Einstein famously maintained that quantum mechanics could not be a proper and complete theory on the ground that "physics should represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky actions at a distance." The problem that ultimately overtook Einstein's argument was that experimental results vindicating quantum mechanics stubbornly continued to appear in the journals. The burden of this Article is to demonstrate that spooky "injuries in fact" involving information have stubbornly continued to appear in United States Reports. It shows that the Court has regularly adjudicated the controversies of the information age: disputes regarding illicit acquisition of information, denial of access to information, and improper exposure to information and intellectual property. And it argues that the Court will continue to do so. These adjudications fatally undermine an account of Article III that insists on "direct," "tangible," and "palpable" injuries to physical or economic interests as the price of admission to the federal courthouse, and profoundly alter notions of "particularized" and "imminent" injury. Information is by nature intangible, and information plays an increasingly dominant role in our social, economic, political, and cultural life. Information is largely non-rivalrous and non-excludable. Violations of duties regarding information thus regularly result in injuries that are "general" rather than "particularized." And, with the advent of the Internet, informational harm is pandemically "imminent": information can be spookily and instantaneously "present" at opposite ends of the country, or of the globe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
