Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Where an association asserts claims solely on behalf of its members, standing “depends in substantial measure on the nature of relief sought.” Id. at 515, 95 S.Ct. 2197, quoted in Discovery House, 319 F.3d at 280. In such cases of pure associational standing, an association is limited to relief that, “if granted, will inure to the benefit of those members of the association actually injured.” Id. However, in addition to bringing suit on behalf of its members, an entity may also be granted “standing in its oum right to seek judicial relief from injury to itself and to vindicate whatever rights and immunities the association itself may enjoy.” Id. at 511, 95 S.Ct. 2197 (emphasis added); see also Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 372-79, 102 S.Ct. 1114, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982) (<HOLDING>). As we understand it, the Seventh Circuit’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a nonprofit organization had standing to bring an action in its own right where  congress intended standing under the fair housing act to extend to the full limits of art iii quoting gladstone realtors v vill of bellwood 441 us 91 103 n 9 99 sct 1601 60 led2d 66 1979 (B) holding an organization had standing because some of its individual members did (C) holding that courts should look to the standing principles  developed under section 4 of the clayton act for guidance in interpreting section 303s standing requirements id at 406 for a recent discussion of standing under the clayton act see associated general contractors v california state council of carpenters us 103 sct 897 74 led2d 723 1983 (D) recognizing associational standing when members would have standing in own right (E) holding that a nonprofit organization lacked standing under unruh because its civil rights had not been personally violated and it failed to show that any of its members would suffer injury
Output (English): holding an organization had standing because some of its individual members did