NATIONAL MOTOR FREIGHT TRAFFIC ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL.
v.
UNITED STATES ET AL.

U.S. | 1963-02-25
No. 479
Mr. Justice Harlan concurs in the denial of the petition for rehearing and in the affirmance of the judgment of the District Court insofar as that judgment refused to set aside the order of the Interstate Commerce Commission. He believes, however, that the question of “standing” should not be decided without plenary consideration., Mr. Justice Stewart would grant the petition for rehearing.
372 U.S. 246 Supreme Court of the United States (1963) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 9 L. Ed. 2d 709 · 83 S. Ct. 688 · SCDB 1962-053 · 1963 U.S. LEXIS 2440
Cited by 64 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Motor freight associations challenged an Interstate Commerce Commission order in district court, and the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal but clarified that the associations had standing to bring the suit as representatives of their member carriers' interests, even though the Court upheld the validity of the ICC's order on the merits. The decision established that trade associations authorized under federal statute and representing members who would be aggrieved by an agency action have standing to challenge that action in court.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

However, we think we should make clear the basis upon which our per curiam order affirmed the judgment of the District Court. 371 U. S.

223. The District Court dismissed appellants’ action to set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission on two grounds: (1) that the appellants lacked standing to challenge the Commission’s order in the District Court; (2) that the appellants’ challenge to the Commission’s order was without merit. Our per curiam order affirmed the District Court’s judgment insofar as it upheld the validity of the Commission’s order on the merits.

We disagreed that appellants lacked standing to challenge the Commission’s order in the District Court. The appellants are associations of motor carriers, authorized under 49 U.

S. C. § 5b, and perform significant functions in the administration of the Interstate Commerce Act, including the representation of member carriers in proceedings before the Commission. Since individual member carriers of appellants will be aggrieved by the Commission’s order, and since appellants are proper representatives of the interests of their members, appellants have standing to challenge the validity of the Commission’s order in the District Court. See Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.

S. C. § 1009 (a); FCC v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station, 309 U. S. 470; NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449, 459.

Mr. Justice Harlan concurs in the denial of the petition for rehearing and in the affirmance of the judgment of the District Court insofar as that judgment refused to set aside the order of the Interstate Commerce Commission. He believes, however, that the question of “standing” should not be decided without plenary consideration.

Mr. Justice Stewart would grant the petition for rehearing.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (20 total)

  • Fla. Home Builders Ass'n v. Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec., 412 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1982)
    …U.S. 490, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975); Meek v. Pittinger, 421 U.S. 349, 95 S.Ct. 1753, 44 L.Ed.2d 217 (1975); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972); National Motor Freight Traffic Ass’n. v. United States, 372 U.S. 246, 83 S.Ct. 688, 9 L.Ed.2d 709 (1963). . U.S.Const. art. III, § 2; Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). . United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669, 93 S.Ct. 2405, 37 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973); Sierra Club; Association of Data Proc.…
  • Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1975)
    …none of the associational petitioners here has asserted injury to itself. Even in the absence of injury to itself, an association' 'may have standing solely as the representative of its members. E. g., National Motor Freight Assn. v. United States, 372 U. S. 246 (1963). The possibility of such representational standing, however, does not eliminate or attenuate the constitutional requirement of a case or controversy. See Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727 (1972). The association must allege that its member…
    1 / 2
  • Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1977)
    …s Court has recognized that an association may have standing to assert the claims of its members even where it has suffered no injury from the challenged activity, e. g., Warth v. Seldin, supra, at 511; National Motor Freight Assn. v. United States, 372 U. S. 246 (1963), the Commission is not a traditional voluntary membership organization such as a trade association, for it has no members at all. Thus, since the Commission has no members whose claims it might raise, and since it has suffered no “distinct an…

Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw