# United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP)

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 18, 1973 · 412 U.S. 669

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425356

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES Et Al. v. STUDENTS CHALLENGING REGULATORY AGENCY PROCEDURES (SCRAP) Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 18, 1973
- **Citations:** 412 U.S. 669; 3 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20536; 5 ERC (BNA) 1449; 93 S. Ct. 2405; 37 L. Ed. 2d 254; 1973 U.S. LEXIS 20
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Blackmun
- **Judges:** Stewart, Brennan, Blackmun, Douglas, Marshall, Burger, White, Rehnquist, Powell
- **Cited by:** 1,560 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425356

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the trial court did not err in denying motion to dismiss based on lack of standing because appellees sufficiently alleged "that their members used the forests, streams, mountains, and other resources in the Washington metropolitan area for camping, hiking, fishing…
- holding that pleadings alleging a specific and perceptible harm were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, but that summary judgment would be warranted on the standing issue if it were demonstrated that the allegations in the pleadings were without su…
- stating “injury in fact” reflects the requirement under the administrative procedure act that the person be “adversely affected,” and “it serves to distinguish a person with a direct stake in the outcome of a litigation — even though small — from a person with a mere interest …
- stating that “[a]esthetic and environmental well- being, like economic well-being, are important ingredients of the quality of life in our society,” and concluding that the plaintiffs had standing where they alleged aesthetic injuries
- finding pleadings alleged facts which, if true, would establish standing by environmental group to challenge Interstate Commerce Commission’s allowance of rail freight increase which identified members whose recreational and aesthetic interests would be allegedly injured becau…

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Blackmun,
with whom Mr. Justice Brennan joins, concurring.
I join the Court’s judgment and its opinion, but because of the presence of the first sentence of Part III of the opinion, and to avoid any misunderstanding as to my posture, I add a few words.
For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 755 (1972), I would hold that the appellees here have standing to maintain this action based on their allegations of harm to the environment resulting from the Commission’s order of April 24, 1972. And, in evaluating whether in-junctive relief is warranted, I would not require that the appellees, in their individual capacities, prove that they in fact were injured. Rather, I would require only that appellees, as responsible and sincere representatives of environmental interests, show that the environment would be injured in fact and that such injury would be irreparable and substantial.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425356. Public record. Not legal advice.