Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 17

Cite as:  600 U. S. ____ (2023) 

9 

Opinion of the Court 

whether  an  organization’s  members  have  standing.  We 
nevertheless concluded that the Commission had standing 
because the apple growers and dealers it represented were 
effectively  members  of  the  Commission.    Id.,  at  344.  The 
growers  and  dealers  “alone  elect[ed]  the  members  of  the 
Commission,” “alone . . . serve[d] on the Commission,” and 
“alone  finance[d]  its  activities”—they  possessed,  in  other 
words, “all of the indicia of membership.”  Ibid.  The Com-
mission was therefore a genuine membership organization 
in substance, if not in form.  And it was “clearly” entitled to
rely  on  the  doctrine  of  organizational  standing  under  the
three-part test recounted above.  Id., at 343. 

The  indicia  of  membership  analysis  employed  in  Hunt 
has no applicability in these cases.  Here, SFFA is indisput-
ably a voluntary membership organization with identifiable 
members—it is not, as in Hunt, a state agency that conced-
edly has no members.  See 2018 DC Opinion 241–242.  As 
the First Circuit in the Harvard litigation observed, at the
time SFFA filed suit, it was “a validly incorporated 501(c)(3) 
nonprofit with forty-seven members who joined voluntarily
to support its mission.”  980 F. 3d, at 184.  Meanwhile in 
the UNC litigation, SFFA represented four members in par-
ticular—high school graduates who were denied admission 
to UNC.  See 2018 DC Opinion 234.  Those members filed 
declarations with the District Court stating “that they have
voluntarily joined SFFA; they support its mission; they re-
ceive  updates  about  the  status  of  the  case  from  SFFA’s
President; and they have had the opportunity to have input 
and  direction  on  SFFA’s  case.”  Id.,  at  234–235  (internal 
quotation marks omitted).  Where, as here, an organization
has identified members and represents them in good faith, 
our cases do not require further scrutiny into how the or-
ganization  operates.  Because  SFFA  complies  with  the
standing  requirements  demanded  of  organizational  plain-
tiffs in Hunt, its obligations under Article III are satisfied.