1. Petition for rehearing denied.
2. In affirming,
371 U. S. 223, the
District Court's judgment dismissing appellants' action to set
aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, this Court
affirmed the District Court's judgment insofar as it upheld the
Commission's order on the merits, but this Court disagreed with the
District Court's view that appellants lacked standing to challenge
the Commission's order in the District Court.
3. Since appellants, authorized associations of motor carriers
under 49 U.S.C. § 5b, are appropriate representatives of their
members, and their members would be aggrieved by the Commission's
order, appellants had standing to challenge the validity of the
Commission's order in the District Court.
Reported below:
205 F.
Supp. 592.
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.
Page 372 U. S. 247
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,
357 U. S.
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.