Document: 397 U.S. 159 90 S.Ct. 838 25 L.Ed.2d 192 ASSOCIATION OF DATA PROCESSING SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS, INC., et al., Petitioners,v.William B. CAMP, Comptroller of the Currency United States, al. Clemon BARLOW Petitioners, v. L. COLLINS, etc., Nos. 85, 249. Supreme Court States March 3, 1970 Harold Edgar, New York City, for petitioners, pro hac vice, by special leave Court. Peter Strauss, Washington, D.C., respondents. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered opinion 1 The question to be decided in this case is whether tenant farmers eligible payments under upland cotton program enacted as part Food and Agriculture Act 1965, 79 Stat. 1194, 7 U.S.C. § 1444(d) (1964 ed., Supp. IV), have standing challenge validity a certain amended regulation promulgated respondent Secretary 1966. 2 incorporates 1938 statute, 8(g) Soil Conservation Demestic Allotment Act, amended, 52 35 205, 16 590h(g), thereby permitting participants assign only 'as security cash or advances finance making crop.'1 effect until 1966 defined 'making crop' exclude assignments secure 'the payment whole any * rent farm.' 20 Fed.Reg. 6512 (1955).2 Following passage 1965 however, before were made it, deleted exclusion expressly define include land used (for planting, cultivating, harvesting.)' 31 2815 (1966).3 3 cash-rent suing on behalf themselves other similarly situated, filed action District Middle Alabama. They sought declaratory judgment that invalid unauthorized an injunction prohibiting federal officials from pursuant regulation.4 Their complaint alleged petitioners are suffering irreparable injury because it provides their landlord 'with opportunity demand (they) all those situated assigned (upland program) benefits advance condition obtaining lease work land.'5 As result, stated, tenants required obtain financing farm needs—groceries, clothing, tools, like—from well, since prior harvesting crop they lack source credit than landlord. He, turn, alleges, levies such high prices rates interest these supplies tenants' profits consumed each year debt payments. Petitioners contend can attain 'modest measure economic independence' if able use 'advance subsidy (to) form cooperatives buy (supplies) at wholesale reasonable lieu excessive demanded (the landlord) captive consumers with no funds purchase elsewhere.' Thus, allege suffer fact operation regulation. 4 Court, unreported opinion, held 'lack maintain against (respondent) governmental officials,' latter 'have not taken which directly invades legally protected plaintiffs.' Appeals Fifth Circuit affirmed, one judge dissenting. 398 F.2d 398. It lacked invasion but also shown us, nor we found, provision either impliedly gives (petitioners) administrative Courts authority review action.' Id., 402. We granted certiorari. 395 958, 89 2108, 23 744. 5 Our decision Association Data Processing Service Organizations Camp, 150, 827, 184, leads us reverse here. 6 First, there doubt context litigation farmers, here, personal stake impart concrete adverseness Article III. Second, clearly within zone interests Act. 8 Implicit statutory provisions legislative history congressional intent protect farmers. Both relevant statutes enjoin do so. states '(t)he shall provide adequate safeguards *.' 1196, 1444(d)(10) IV).6 Title 1444(d)(13) noted earlier, reference 8(g), 590h(g). Section 8(b) shall, far practicable, 32, 590h(b). provision, though sparse, indicates benefit tenants.7 persons 'aggrieved agency meaning statute' words 702 IV). 9 Third, judicial Secretary's precluded. rested its holding view 'expressly F.2d, Whether reviewable often poses difficult questions intent; must decide Congress has express implied terms precluded committed challenged entirely discretion. 10 Administrative Procedure 701(a) allows except where '(1) preclude review; (2) discretion law.' here was 590d(3) authorizes 'prescribe regulations, he may deem proper carry out chapter.' Plainly does review, Nor promulgate regulations proper' constitute commitment task defining discretionary Executive Branch without intervention courts. On contrary, principal dispute relates term, controversy ultimately resolved, basis matters competence Secretary, application canons construction. See Texas Gas Transmission Corp. Shell Oil Co., 363 263, 268—270, 80 1122, 1126—1127, 1208. 'The rule courts should, particular, viewed hospitably reviewed significantly engage agency's expertise. '(W)here term' controversy) presents issues courts, (administrators), relatively more expert.' Hardin Kentucky Utilities 390 1, 14, 88 651, 658—659, 19 787 (Harlan, J., dissenting). Therefore permissive term proper,' itself, read command precludes determination correct governing canons. 11 then becomes nonreviewability fairly inferred. said Service, preclusion adjudicating private rights lightly Leedom Kyne, 358 180, 210; Harmon Brucker, 355 579, 78 433, 503; Stark Wickard, 321 288, 64 559, L.Ed. 733; American School Magnetic Healing McAnnulty, 187 94, 33, 47 90. Indeed, rule, exception demonstrated. In Abbott Laboratories Gardner, 387 136, 140, 87 1507, 1511, 18 681, 'judicial final aggrieved person will cut unless persuasive reason believe purpose Congress.' A clear statute inferred purpose. Switchmen's Union North America National Mediation Board, 320 297, 95, 61. is, 'only upon showing 'clear convincing evidence' contrary intent' should restrict access review. supra, 141, 1511. right ordinarily class plaintiff member found; cases, members objectives might realized. Chicago Junction Case, 264 258, 44 317, 68 667; Utilities, supra. 12 hold scheme issue evincing action. 13 judgments vacated remanded hearing merits. 14 so ordered. 15 Judgments remanded. BRENNAN, whom WHITE joins, concurring 17 I concur result both cases dissent Court's treatment approach standing, set Processing, two steps: (1) framework III restricts power 'cases' 'controversies," first step determine 'whether alleges caused him fact'; alleged, constitutional examined complainant arguably regulated guarantee question.' My inquiry need standing. had thought discarded notion additional requirement when discussed solely content Flast Cohen, 392 83, 1942, 947 (1968). By requiring second, nonconstitutional step, comes very close perpetuating discredited conditioned invaded his interests.1 Barlow typical illustration harm resulted requirement. substantial goes merits: language create prohibition assignment rent? confusing merits plaintiffs' action, denied focused careful entitled. Although properly reverses account, encourages decisions engrafting wholly unnecessary inappropriate second Before allowed argue merits, true canvass materials challenging But made, aspect reviewability, meant deny allow instance plaintiff.2 present examines just after same examination during inquiry. Thus determines '§ (of Bank Corporation 1962) brings competitor it.' Comptroller's plaintiffs '(b)oth Act) 'relevant' IV)). Acts specified group. general policy apparent; whose affected broad narrow interpretation easily identifiable. competitiors national banks engaging data processing services, 'aggrieved' who, 702, entitled 'agency action." Again Barlow, found 'tenant Act.' Examination subsequently conclusion 21 submit element performs useless exercise badly reasoned decisions, well justice complex field. When challenged, pose discrete, complicated, best resolved recognizing treating them such. 22 STANDING Cohen resolve cases. confirmed what Baker Carr, 369 186, 204, 82 691, 703, 663 (1962), 'gist standing' party seeking relief 'alleged outcome assure sharpens presentation court largely depends illumination questions.' 'In words,' Flast, 'when placed case, request adjudication particular issue' otherwise justiciable,3 whether, defendant's invaded. U.S., 99—100, 1952—1953, 947. simple: avoidance 'federal forum airing of) generalized grievances about conduct government,' creation framed necessary specificity, contested pursued vigor traditionally capable resolution.' 106, 1955—1956. related adjudicated presented adversary historically 101, 1953.4 Atchison, T. & S.F.R. 357 77, 83—84, 1063, 1066 1068, 1174 (1958). 24 light exists fact, otherwise.5 He thus shows requisite 'personal outcome' suit. 663. reasonably expect harmed will, can, frame contest adverseness, pursue vigorously.6 Recognition litigate consistent Constitution, further pertinent existence. II REVIEWABILITY legality issue, alone entitle Pertinent language, history, public considerations and, not, nevertheless foreclosed belongs. Under (APA), 'statutes (may) review' (may be) court, enter, stripped judiciary Review totally foreclosed, Schilling Rogers, 666, 1288, 1478 (1960), or, permitted, nonetheless plaintiff's class. principle laid down 1510—1511, 681 (1967), off 26 APA '(a) legal wrong adversely thereof.' Congressional granting class,7 absence indicia inferred.8 Where, instant grant reviewability been evidence intended beneficiary raises claim. See, example, 667 (1924); (1968); Norwalk CORE Redevelopment Agency, 920 (C.A.2d Cir. 1968). Laboratories, slight suffice support inference.9 THE MERITS 27 If determined who proceeds merits—to specific claimed protested interest.10 true, course, already touched tangentially some reviewability. establishing identification existence prove. beneficiary. afford bear protects class, show violated statute. Evidence beneficiary, strong claim establish reach IV 28 To reiterate, my distinct another, governed own considerations. fail isolate treat independently two, possible, risk obscuring given uninformed, poorly injustice. Too various merged into confused inquiry, lumped rubric 'standing.' books full opinions dismiss 'standing' dismissal, all, actually failure prove claimed,11 instance.12 29 ambiguity injustice minimized cleanly severing, inquiries Today's compound confusion breed even over place, formulation non-constitutional obscure. What precisely statute'? How 'interest' advance? Will broad, claim, competitive interest, suffice, identify interest? When, too, 'arguably' appropriate 'zone'? Does mere allegation falls suffice? required, merits? And distinction between 'protected' 'regulated' Is possible unquestionably regulates stake, excludes among beneficiaries? 30 insists involve grave misgivings score. most certainly bears disquieting similarity erroneous interest. Finally, assuming focus surely serves class.13 And, so, place context. Constitution requires actual Investigation met nothing common ascertain limited review.14 More fundamentally, treats separately decides criteria, assures squarely faced, contributing better greater confidence done. too little guard possibility judges slam courthouse door consideration claims trouble concerned function process today's world. Brother Douglas said: indispensable our system. With growing complexities government effective obtained. (W)here wrongs individuals done abdication doors.' 111, 1958 (concurring opinion). 1444(d)(5) IV) pay farmer season up 50% estimated due him. subject limitations added established monies Anti-Assignment U.S.C 203. provided: 'A section, assigned, discount, writing crop. Such signed witnessed county local committee *. statement preexisting indebtedness. This authorize suit impose liability regard assignment.' 590h(g) (emphasis added). 1167 (1966) permit fund 'handling marketing agricultural commodity, performing conservation practice.' (1955) 'Payment section Domestic current year. means (a) plainting, crop, including equipment therefor; (b) food, necessities assignor dependent assignor; (c) carrying soil water practices. Nothing contained herein construed price fixed commodity 32 14921 CFR 709.3 (1969) now provides: 'Purposes assigned. producer applicable handling practice, No indebtedness nature whatsoever. '(b) therefor therefor, '(c) respondents, addition Agriculture, State Director Agricultural Stabilization Alabama, administrator Department Agriculture. included counts petitioners' alleging acted improperly deprive receive payments, further, illegally evicted participation respect program, petitioner, candidacy Alabama committeeman. landlord's motion transferred trial Southern That ruling us. stated 'were land' refused execute '(p)laintiffs eleven sixty-one years (two them) lives.' connection issued rules designed ensure fair share 4887—4888; §§ 722.817, 794.3. remarks Representative Fulmer, Cong.Rec. 844 (1937), Senator Adams, id., 1756. could indicated concern farmers' welfare, embodied letter President Senate January 1952, 'was creating assist farming operations.' S.Rep.No. 1305, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 3; 1952 Code Cong. Admin. News, p. 1494. Cf. Associated Industries Ickes, 134 694, 700 1943): citizen officer, complaining past unlawful defendant, justiciable 'controversy,' substantive citizen; 'recognized' character, 'common law' created (or Constitution).' Reviewability treated involved single issue: conclusive beyond anyone. reality, equally requesting it. extent legality. Other elements justiciability are, instance, ripeness, e.g., Poe Ullman, 367 497, 81 1752, 989 (1961), mootness, W. Grant 345 629, 73 894, 97 1303 (1953), friendly collusive suits, Grand Trunk R. Co. Wellman, 143 339, 400, 36 176 (1892); Johnson, 319 302, 63 1075, 1413 (1943). 'Justiciability' art refer necessity deal lest 'intrude areas branches government.' 1950. political-question doctrine analogue sphere law concept non-reviewability. Air Lines, Inc. Waterman Steamship Corp., 333 103, 431, 92 568 (1948); (1960). jurisdiction, Brown Shoe 370 294, 305, 1502, 1512—1513, 510 (1962); Fire Casualty Finn, 341 6, 17—18, 71 534, 541—542, 95 A.L.R.2d 738 (1951). many grounds lawsuit proceeding granted, borne burden proof. types parties resolution 'presented context.' Davis, Standing: Taxpayers Others, U.Chi.L.Rev. 601, 607 instances, challenges purposes sufficient damnum absque injuria, suffered Injury generally nature, be. Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference FPC, 354 608 1965); Office Communication Church Christ FCC, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 328, 359 994 (1966). 'distinctive discriminating' linked meet test. Jaffe, Judicial Control Action 501 (1965). distinctive discriminating harm, obviously consider satisfy sustained sue rather taxpayers citizens vindicate public. Past indicate meets FCC Sanders Bros. Radio Station, 309 470, 476—477, 60 693, 698—699, 84 869 (1940); Scripps-Howard Radio, 316 4, 62 875, 86 1229 (1942). permitted economically although 882, Communications 1934 did new rights. communications. 402(b)(2) gave appeal affected' Commission Accordingly, cannot expand jurisdiction Muskrat 219 346, 250, 55 246 (1911), follows renders adverse Constitution. K. Law Treatise 22.02, 211 (1958); n. 5, 336. Securities 1933, '(a)ny order review,' 77i(a), Federal Power grants chapter 825l(b). Though particularly likely Refusal would, effect, commit discretion, risking frustration objectives. frivolous, proof substantiate lacking, hastened summary judgment. E.g., Tennessee Electric TVA, 306 118, 59 366, 83 543 (1939); Organizations, 406 837, 843 (C.A.8th 1969); Collins, 398, 401 (C.A.5th 843; 401—402; Harrison-Halsted Community Group, Housing Home Finance 310 99 (C.A.7th 1962). involving would inquiry—unless preview apply intent, material speaks 'statutory aid standing.' Statutory materials, consulted purport constitutes fact.

Category: 8