Whether a federal court may certify a damages class that contains members who lack any injury other than an intangible harm based on the asserted disparate impact of a race-neutral policy

In TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez , 594 U.S. 413 (2021), th is Court held that all members of a class action must have Article III standing to obtain damages , id. at 431, and the mere existence of a statutory “cause of action” does not establish Article III standing unless each class member has suffered a “concrete ” harm with a “close historical or common -law analogue ,” id. at 424. TransUnion reserved the “question whether every class member must demonstrate standing before a court certifies a class.” Id. at 431 n.4. The Court granted review in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis , 605 U.S. 327 (2025), to resolve a circuit conflict on that question but ultimately dismissed that case as improvidently granted . In this case, the Sixth Circuit affirmed certification of a damages class asserting disparate -impact claims under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. , that undisputedly contains a substantial number of members who suffered no economic injury. The Sixth Circuit held that class certification was appropriate on the theory that the mere intangible disproportionate impact of a race -neutral policy —even without any tangible harm —is an Article III injury “comparable to traditional harms found in the Constitution .” App., infra , 20a. The question presented is as follows: Whether a federal court may certify a damages class that contains members who lack any injury other than an intangible harm based on the asserted disparate impact of a race -neutral policy .