{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0248565965583174, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007010834926704908, 'mean_word_length': 4.836431226765799, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
U.S. Supreme Court Brief of Legal Scholars as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondent (TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, No. 20-297)

This brief was filed by legal scholars with expertise in federal courts, federal jurisdiction, and federal civil procedure in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, which will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 30, 2021. 
 
In passing the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Congress imposed obligations on credit reporting companies like TransUnion that are designed to protect precisely the kind of individuals who were members of the plaintiff class in this case. Congress also provided a cause of action to allow those individuals to enforce the companies' obligations. At trial, the jury found that the evidence supported each statutory element of the cause of action as to each individual class member. And the jury awarded remedies that are specifically authorized by the same statute that created the cause of action. Nonetheless, TransUnion asks this Court to throw out the judgment below for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on additional, uncodified elements that are ostensibly necessary for this case even to qualify as a "case or controversy" under Article III. 
 
That is not, however, what Article III requires. Doing so would not only deprive class members of a jury verdict vindicating their rights after years of litigation, but also upend this Court's standing jurisprudence and require class members--and anyone injured by violations of similar congressionally created statutory rights--to seek redress only in state courts.