Document: 397 U.S. 150 90 S.Ct. 827 25 L.Ed.2d 184 ASSOCIATION OF DATA PROCESSING SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS, INC., et al., Petitioners,v.William B. CAMP, Comptroller of the Currency United States, al. No. 85. Argued Nov. 18, 1969. Decided March 3, 1970. Bert M. Gross, for petitioners. Alan S. Rosenthal, Washington, D.C., respondents. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered opinion Court. 1 Petitioners sell data processing services to businesses generally. In this suit they seek challenge a ruling by respondent that, as an incident their banking services, national banks, including American National Bank & Trust Company, may make available other banks and bank customers. The District Court dismissed complaint lack standing petitioners bring suit. 279 F.Supp. 675. Appeals affirmed. 406 F.2d 837. case is here on petition writ certiorari which we granted. 395 976, 89 2128, 23 764. 2 Generalizations about sue are largely worthless such. One generalization is, however, necessary that question in federal courts be considered framework Article III restricts judicial power 'cases' 'controversies.' As recently stated Flast v. Cohen, 392 83, 101, 88 1942, 1953, 20 947 '(I)n terms limitations court jurisdiction, related only whether dispute sought adjudicated will presented adversary context form historically viewed capable resolution.' was taxpayer's present competitor's And while two have same starting point, do not necessarily track one another. 3 first plaintiff alleges challenged action has caused him injury fact, economic or otherwise. There can no doubt but satisfied test. allege competition business providing might entail some future loss profits petitioners, also Company performing preparing perform such customers whom petitioner Data Systems, Inc., had previously agreed negotiated services. petitioners' brought against Currency. alleged fact his 1966 stated: 4 'Incidental its equipment customers.' Comptroller's Manual Banks 3500 (October 15, 1966). 5 matter differently, stating: 6 '(A) illegal when complainant it pursues (1) legal interest reason public charter contract, * (2) statutory protection, (3) 'public interest' Congress recognized need review administrative significantly involved represent *.' F.2d, at 842—843.1 7 Those tests were based prior decisions Court, Tennessee Electric Power Co. TVA, 306 118, 59 366, 83 L.Ed. 543, where private companies enjoin TVA from operating, claiming plan under created unconstitutional. denied competitors' standing, holding did status 'unless right invaded right,—one property, arising out protected tortious invasion, founded statute confers privilege.' Id., 137—138, 369. 8 'legal test goes merits. different. It concerns, apart 'case' 'controversy' test, arguably within zone interests regulated constitutional guarantee question. Thus Administrative Procedure Act grants person 'aggrieved agency meaning relevant statute.' U.S.C. § 702 (1964 ed., Supp. IV). That interest, times, reflect 'aesthetic, conservational, recreational' well values. Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference FCC, Cir., 354 608, 616; Office Communication Church Christ 123 U.S.App.D.C. 328, 334—340, 359 994, 1000—1006. A family spiritual stake First Amendment values sufficient give raise issues concerning Establishment Clause Free Exercise Clause. Abington School Schempp, 374 203, 1560, 10 844. We mention these noneconomic emphasize stem them rely here. Certainly he who 'likely financially' injured, FCC Sanders Bros. Radio Station, 309 470, 477, 60 693, 698, reliable attorney general litigate case. 9 Apart jurisdictional questions, problems resolved own governance, 'rule self-restraint.' Barrows Jackson, 346 249, 255, 73 1031, 1034, 97 1586. can, course, resolve way another, save requirements dectate Muskrat 219 346, 31 250, 55 246. Where statutes concerned, trend toward enlargement class people protest action. whole drive enlarging category aggrieved 'persons' symptomatic trend. closely analogous held existing entrepreneur legality entrance newcomer into business, because established allegedly valid city ordinance unlawful competition. Chicago Atchison, T. S.F.R. Co., 357 77, 83—84, 78 1063, 1066—1068, 1174. tradition Hardin Kentucky Utilities 390 1, 651, 19 787, section designed primarily protect, through area limitations, utilities explicit provision confer since utility bringing persons protect. 11 argued Service Corporation 1962, 76 Stat. 1132, 12 1864, provides: 'No service corporation engage any activity than performance banks.' 13 Circuit Arnold Tours, Inc. Camp, 408 1147, 1153, company contest customers: 14 'Section broader purpose regulating corporations. response fears expressed few senators, without prohibition, bill would enabled 'banks nonbanking activity,' S.Rep.No.2105, (87th Cong., 2d Sess., 7—12) (Supplemental views Senators Proxmire, Douglas, Neuberger), thus constitute 'a serious exception accepted policy strictly limits banking.' Muskie Clark). think provided aid even though precise kind legislated against.' put issue those words, implicate think, brings competitor it. 15 leaves remaining question, been precluded. been. great contrariety among agencies respects 'the extent which, procedures different measures control afford action.' Stark Wickard, 321 288, 312, 64 559, 572, 733 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). answer, depends particular enactment sought. turns existence intent deduced precedents.' 308, 570. 16 provides provisions authorizing apply 'except that—(1) preclude review; committed discretion law.' 701(a) 17 Shaughnessy Pedreiro, 349 48, 51, 75 591, 593—594, 99 868, referred generous provisions' Act; others (see Rusk Cort, 369 367, 379—380, 82 794—795, 809) construed grudgingly serving broadly remedial purpose. 18 read sympathetic House Report: 'The merely advisory relate agencies, more cases. To statute, if specific withholding review, must upon face clear convincing evidence withhold mere failure provide specially certainly review.' H.R.Rep. 1980, 79th 41. 21 presumption favor absolutism Abbott Laboratories Gardner, 387 136, 140, 87 1507, 1510—1511, 681), unless fairly discernible scheme. Cf. Switchmen's Union Mediation Board, 320 297, 95, 61. 22 find either Act2 rulings legitimate scope activities statutes. Both Acts clearly 'relevant' 702. protect specified group. But apparent; whose directly affected broad narrow interpretation easily identifiable. competitors engaging 'aggrieved' who, 702, entitled 'agency Whether anything gives protects violations Acts, actions respondents violate questions go merits remain decided below. hold should remanded hearing 24 Reversed remanded. applied required showing interest.' non-existence quite distinct problem standing. Barlow Collins, 159, 832. third mentioned Appeals, rests regulatory conferring commonly allowing suits 'private attorneys general,' inapplicable See 84 869; Associated Industries New York Ickes, 134 694, vacated suggestion mootness, 707, 74, 414. violates Act, Rev.Stat. 5136, Seventh, exercise 'all incidental powers shall carry intimate view, supra, rendered today 835, Association Securities Dealers SEC, 843, Investment Institute now pending petitions writs certiorari.

Category: 8