Sprint Communications Co., L. P v. Apcc Services, Inc

Summary

The Supreme Court held that an assignee of a legal claim for money owed — including an assignee for collection only who has promised to remit all litigation proceeds to the assignor — has Article III standing to pursue that claim in federal court. Relying on a centuries-old tradition of assignee suits and on precedent recognizing that an assignee may assert the assignor's injury in fact, the Court found the aggregator-assignees satisfied the injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability requirements, and it rejected prudential objections grounded in third-party standing, Rule 23 circumvention, and practical litigation problems. Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, dissented, contending that assignees with no right to any portion of the recovery lack the personal stake Article III demands and that the historical tradition of assignee-for-collection suits is equivocal.