Jennifer Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.

I concur in the majority opinion with the following caveat:

As to prospective relief, the majority opinion rests on the proposition that we are required to perform a separate standing analysis for each “form of relief,” and concludes that Davidson’s claims for restitution and for an injunction each qualify as having established standing. There is case law supporting both points, as the opinion states.

I write separately to note that duplicating the standing analysis in this way does not give effect to the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III. Instead, it appears to be an artifact of…