The contours of Article III are notoriously ill-defined. Yet, nowhere is this opacity more evident than when viewed through the lens of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. This Essay explores Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement in the context of affirmative action jurisprudence from Bakke to Fisher and concludes – as have many commentators – that the Supreme Court should have dismissed Fisher’s complaint for want of standing. Uniquely, however, this Essay reasons that Fisher should have lacked standing even assuming arguendo that Bakke was rightly decided. Specifically, in Associated General Contractors v. Jacksonville, the Court cited Bakke for the proposition that failure to put an individual on “equal footing” is an injury that triggers Article III standing. This Essay excoriates Jacksonville’s flawed analysis and concludes that the “injury” the Court invented lacks a mooring in precedent, the text of Article III, and logic.