Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

8 

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT 
AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 
Opinion of the Court 

(b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the or-
ganization’s purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor
the relief requested requires the participation of individual 
members in the lawsuit.”  Hunt v. Washington State Apple 
Advertising Comm’n, 432 U. S. 333, 343 (1977).

Respondents do not contest that SFFA satisfies the three-
part  test  for  organizational  standing  articulated  in  Hunt, 
and like the courts below, we find no basis in the record to 
conclude  otherwise.  See  980  F. 3d,  at  182–184;  397 
F. Supp. 3d, at 183–184; No. 1:14–cv–954 (MDNC, Sept. 29,
2018), App. D to Pet. for Cert. in No. 21–707, pp. 237–245
(2018 DC Opinion).  Respondents instead argue that SFFA 
was  not  a  “genuine  ‘membership  organization’ ”  when  it 
filed suit, and thus that it could not invoke the doctrine of 
organizational standing in the first place.  Brief for Univer-
sity  Respondents  in  No.  21–707,  at  24.    According  to  re-
spondents,  our  decision  in  Hunt  established  that  groups
qualify as genuine membership organizations only if they
are controlled and funded by their members.  And because 
SFFA’s members did neither at the time this litigation com-
menced, respondents’ argument goes, SFFA could not rep-
resent  its  members  for  purposes  of  Article  III  standing. 
Brief for University Respondents in No. 21–707, at 24 (cit-
ing Hunt, 432 U. S., at 343). 

Hunt  involved  the  Washington  State  Apple  Advertising 
Commission, a state agency whose purpose was to protect 
the  local  apple  industry.  The  Commission  brought  suit
challenging a North Carolina statute that imposed a label-
ing requirement on containers of apples sold in that State.
The Commission argued that it had standing to challenge 
the requirement on behalf of Washington’s apple industry. 
See id., at 336–341.  We recognized, however, that as a state
agency, “the Commission [wa]s not a traditional voluntary 
membership organization . . . , for it ha[d] no members at 
all.”  Id., at 342.  As a result, we could not easily apply the
three-part  test  for  organizational  standing,  which  asks