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

Supreme Court of the United States · 1973 · Federal Courts

412 U.S. 669 (1973)

Updated August 1, 2026

Federal Courtsattenuated injurystandingNEPAadministrative lawinjury in factaesthetic harmenvironmental harm

Facts

Railroads sought and received ICC permission to impose a temporary 2.5% surcharge on nearly all freight rates, including recyclable materials, while proposed permanent selective increases were under consideration. Environmental groups alleged that refusing to suspend the surcharge would discourage use of recyclable materials, increase use of new raw materials, and thereby harm the environment through more extraction, more waste, and diminished use and enjoyment of natural resources by their members. In their complaint, SCRAP alleged that its members used forests, streams, and other natural resources in the Washington area for recreational and aesthetic purposes and that those uses were adversely affected by the modified rate structure. The District Court accepted those allegations as sufficient for standing and enjoined collection of the surcharge on recyclable goods.

Issue

Whether the environmental groups adequately alleged standing under the APA to challenge the ICC's action, and whether a federal court had power to enjoin the ICC and railroads from allowing or collecting the surcharge pending review on the theory that the ICC had not complied with NEPA.

Rule

For standing under APA § 702, a plaintiff must allege injury in fact to an interest arguably within the zone of interests protected by the statute invoked; aesthetic and environmental harm can qualify, and standing is not defeated because many persons share the injury. At the pleading stage, a plaintiff must allege a specific and perceptible harm to himself that is true and capable of proof, but a court may not dismiss if the allegations, if proved, would show injury in fact. Separately, under Interstate Commerce Act § 15(7), courts lack power to suspend railroad rates pending Commission action, and NEPA does not impliedly repeal that limitation or revive judicial suspension power.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A nonprofit in Baltimore sues a federal transportation regulator after the regulator allows a nationwide temporary freight surcharge on used aluminum. The complaint alleges that named members regularly kayak and bird-watch along Chesapeake Bay marshes and that the surcharge will reduce recycling, increase extraction and waste, and thereby impair those members' recreational and aesthetic enjoyment of those marshes.

On the regulator's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for lack of standing, what is the best result?

Explanation. At the pleading stage, standing is sufficiently alleged when plaintiffs claim they themselves use natural resources and that the challenged action will perceptibly harm that use and enjoyment. The majority accepted aesthetic and environmental injury as injury in fact and rejected the idea that shared injury defeats standing. It also allowed a relatively attenuated causal chain to survive dismissal where the alleged harm was specific and capable of proof.