First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards (10-708)

argument 10-708

First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards

Supreme Court of the United States 59 min 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the constitutional requirement for standing under Article III?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument first this morning in case ten seven hundred eight, First American Financial Corporation versus Edwards. Mr Panner.

Paul D. Clement 0:09

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. Article three requires a private plaintiff to show injury in fact. which means at a minimum that the alleged illegal conduct made her worse off. Factual injury does not automatically follow from violation of a statutory duty owed to the plaintiff. And Ms. Edwards has not alleged the type of harm alleged by plaintiffs in the common law cases that she invokes. No misappropriation of her property, no loss of desired opportunity or benefit, no injury to reputation.

Stephen G. Breyer 0:38

So let me just be g uh use an example hypothetical based on the next case really. Thinking. Uh Congress passes a law that says you can't phone people between seven And at night and seven in the morning. uh and try to sell them something. Okay? That's the law. And anyone who gets such a phone call gets five hundred dollars in damages automatically, if they sue in court, if they receive such a call. The harm was getting the call. So my grandmother He was always complaining no one ever calls her. loved the telephone call. She loved it. The best thing happened to her in a month. Okay. Now can she sue?

Paul D. Clement 1:17

Uh no, Your Honor, if she does not have actual injury, the fact of the statutory violation would not give rise to standing in that case. Now it's un I I think it would be quite un unlikely. that a plaintiff would would come before the court and say, actually the statutory violation delighted me. I nevertheless like my five hundred dollars. But if the injury in fact requirement means anything, it means that a plaintiff who comes before the court must have a hard time.

Stephen G. Breyer 1:41

In other words, if the if the FDA bans a substance on the ground that ninety eight percent of the people it hurts And there's some kind of automatic recovery of five hundred dollars anybody who bought the substance 'cause it wasn't supposed to be sold. And she's one of the two percent that it helped.

Paul D. Clement 1:58

Well, Your Honor, in in the case which In the case in which someone is exposed to a substance that has that is illegal, they might well suffer a harm and the harm might be the exposure to the substance. Um and it and the sort of inquiry that you're looking into which is even if the the exposure ended up not being harmful, would that be a case?

Stephen G. Breyer 2:17

Well, here she was exposed, or the plaintiff was exposed, to the kind of transaction that Congress said was harmful as a general matter, just like the example you gave.

Paul D. Clement 2:26

I don't think so, Your Honor. And the reason is that in this case, the the violation had, as her complaint makes clear, she paid the only rate for title insurance available in Ohio. She does not complain of the quality of the insurance or the service she received. She does not maintain the remote.

Unknown 2:46

Because she can't prove it at the early stage. I mean the problem that Congress was concerned about was that You you can't tell until the house is going to be sold again. how adequate the title insurance was. So Congress is acting on the potential that these kind of kickbacks can cause harm. And this does seem to fit. The bill of Restitution, unjust enrichment cases, where the plaintiff doesn't have to prove any harm. She just gets back what the defendant should not have received.

Paul D. Clement 3:23

Your Honor, with respect to unjust enrichment cases, those cases reflect circumstances where there's a benefit received at the expense of the plaintiff. And in circum in the traditional sorts of cases, unjust enrichment, of course, is an invention as a category that's relatively recent, but the unjust enrichment cases reflect quasi-contract circumstances where a benefit was conferred that um injustice should have been compensated so the plaintiff is made worse off in not receiving the benefit or the compensation for the benefit or a circumstance of constructive trust where there was property or other um right of the plaintiff that was misappropriated and used um without the permission of the plaintiff.

Paul D. Clement 4:04

So an a an opportunity