Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 64

524US1

Unit: $U72

[09-06-00 17:28:15] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 11 (1998)

19

Opinion of the Court

II

The Solicitor General argues that respondents lack stand-
ing to challenge the FEC’s decision not to proceed against
AIPAC. He claims that they have failed to satisfy the “pru-
dential” standing requirements upon which this Court has
insisted. See, e. g., National Credit Union Admin. v. First
Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 522 U. S. 479, 488 (1998) (NCUA);
Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc.
v. Camp, 397 U. S. 150, 153 (1970) (Data Processing). He
adds that respondents have not shown that they “suffe[r] in-
jury in fact,” that their injury is “fairly traceable” to the
FEC’s decision, or that a judicial decision in their favor
would “redres[s]” the injury. E. g., Bennett v. Spear, 520
U. S. 154, 162 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted);
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561 (1992).
In his view, respondents’ District Court petition conse-
quently failed to meet Article III’s demand for a “case” or
“controversy.”

We do not agree with the FEC’s “prudential standing”
claim. Congress has speciﬁcally provided in FECA that
“[a]ny person who believes a violation of this Act . . . has
occurred, may ﬁle a complaint with the Commission.”
§ 437g(a)(1).
It has added that “[a]ny party aggrieved by an
order of the Commission dismissing a complaint ﬁled by such
party . . . may ﬁle a petition” in district court seeking review
of that dismissal.
§ 437g(a)(8)(A). History associates the
word “aggrieved” with a congressional intent to cast the
standing net broadly—beyond the common-law interests and
substantive statutory rights upon which “prudential” stand-
ing traditionally rested. Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v.
FCC, 316 U. S. 4 (1942); FCC v. Sanders Brothers Radio Sta-
tion, 309 U. S. 470 (1940); Ofﬁce of Communication of the
United Church of Christ v. FCC, 359 F. 2d 994 (CADC 1966)
(Burger, J.); Associated Industries of New York State v.
Ickes, 134 F. 2d 694 (CA2 1943) (Frank, J.). Cf. Administra-
tive Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 702 (stating that those “suf-