On the last day of the 2011 Term, the Supreme Court dismissed, as improvidently granted, the writ of certiorari in First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards. The dismissal, seven months after oral argument, was an unusual outcome for a case many expected to be the “sleeper” of the Term. At issue before the Court was whether Article III limits Congress’s power to confer standing upon litigants whose only injury is a violation of a statutory right. At oral argument, members of the Court expressed discomfort with the existing formulation—that Article III injury may exist “solely by virtue of statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing.” This Note takes up where the Court left off. It suggests the existing formulation is incomplete insofar as it permits plaintiffs to bring suits against private parties without showing how their conduct injures the plaintiffs in a differentiated way. This Note argues that Article III requires a plaintiff’s injury be “rationally connected” to the offending conduct at issue. It suggests the Court articulate such a “rational connection” requirement to close a doctrinal gap in the test for particularized injury.