(4th Circ., filed September 30, 2024): Arguing that Article III standing is a threshold requirement for all claims in federal court. Medical-monitoring claims that are based on nothing more than speculation and the mere possibility of future injury do not comport with Article III. An unsubstantiated claim of exposure to a hazardous substance that might increase the risk of developing an illness later is not an “injury in fact.” Other courts have recognized the speculative nature of the type of injury on which medical monitoring plaintiffs base their claims.
