Injury in Fact

What It Is

“Injury in fact” is the first and most important requirement for standing — the legal concept that determines whether you have the right to bring a lawsuit in federal court. Without an injury in fact, the court will dismiss your case for lack of jurisdiction, no matter how strong your claims are.

The Supreme Court defined the test in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992): an injury in fact must be (1) concrete and particularized and (2) actual or imminent, not hypothetical or speculative.

What the Terms Mean

• Concrete — The harm must be real, not abstract. It must actually affect you in a tangible way.
• Particularized — The harm must affect you personally, not just the general public.
• Actual or imminent — The harm has already happened or is about to happen. A vague fear that something might happen someday isn’t enough.

Injury in Fact in § 1983 Cases

In most § 1983 cases, injury in fact is straightforward. If police used excessive force on you, you have a physical injury. If you were falsely arrested, you lost your liberty. These are clear, concrete, particularized injuries.

But some situations raise questions:

• Constitutional violation with no physical harm — A constitutional violation is itself an injury, even without physical damage. In Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 592 U.S. 279 (2021), the Supreme Court confirmed that a request for nominal damages (even $1) is enough to satisfy standing based on a past constitutional violation.
• Chilling effect on speech — If a government action makes you afraid to exercise your First Amendment rights, that self-censorship can be an injury in fact.
• Risk of future harm — If you face a credible, imminent threat of the same violation happening again, you may have standing for injunctive relief.

The Three Parts of Standing

Injury in fact is just one piece. Full standing under Lujan requires:

1. Injury in fact — A concrete, particularized, actual or imminent harm
2. Causation — The injury is fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct
3. Redressability — A court ruling in your favor would likely fix or compensate the injury

Practical Tips

• Name your injury clearly in your complaint — physical harm, loss of liberty, emotional distress, financial loss, or the constitutional violation itself
• If your only injury is the constitutional violation itself, request nominal damages to preserve standing
• Past injury gives you standing for damages but usually not for injunctive relief — for an injunction you need to show a real likelihood of future harm

Key Cases

• Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) — Established the three-part standing test
• Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 592 U.S. 279 (2021) — Nominal damages satisfy standing for past constitutional violations
• TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021) — Clarified that concrete harm requires a close relationship to traditional harms