Skip to main content


On December 7, 2018, in Scahill v. District of Columbia, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that a plaintiff may cure an Article III standing defect through an amended pleading alleging facts that arose after the filing of the original complaint. In so doing, the D.C. Circuit joined an expanding plurality of the federal appellate courts in rejecting the alternative approach that requires a plaintiff lacking standing at the outset of a lawsuit to file a new lawsuit when events subsequent to filing the original complaint have corrected any standing deficiency. This Comment assesses the D.C. Circuit’s decision and argues that the inefficient and needlessly formalistic approach of a shrinking minority of the circuits, which Scahill discards, ought to be abandoned entirely.


File nameDate UploadedVisibilityFile size
6 Sep 2022
228 kB



  • Subject
    • Civil Procedure

    • Courts

  • Journal title
    • Boston College Law Review

  • Volume
    • 61

  • Issue
    • 9

  • Pagination
    • E.Supp. II.-230

  • Date submitted

    6 September 2022