Whether, under TransUnion, intangible-statutory-harm must have a historical-or-common-law-analogue in the context of the particular-relief-sought to satisfy-Article-III

QUESTION PRESENTED Respondents are descendants of persons who allegedly owned properties that were confiscated by the Cuban government. They contend that they own “claims” to the properties created by the Helms-Burton Act and have sued Petitioners, who are owners and operators of online travel websites where bookings at hotels on the properties were listed, for allegedly violating their statutory right against trafficking in the properties. In TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021), issued after this case was briefed in the court of appeals, this Court held that statutory injuries must have a close historical or common law analogue to support standing, id. at 2204, and also that standing must be demonstrated for “each form of relief’ a plaintiff seeks, id. at 2210. The court of appeals held Respondents’ alleged statutory injury bears a close relationship to the common-law harm of unjust enrichment and Respondents therefore have standing, even though the relief they seek is statutory damages equal to the full value of the properties, not disgorgement of Petitioners’ allegedly ill-gotten gains. The question presented is: Whether, under TransUnion, intangible, statutory harm must have a historical or common-law analogue in the context of the particular relief sought to satisfy Article III.