Page:United States Reports 502 OCT. TERM 1991.pdf/629

 502US2$28K 02-10-99 15:12:54 PAGES OPINPGT

Cite as: 502 U. S. 437 (1992)

471

Scalia, J., dissenting

test than did that of the plaintiff postal union in Air Courier Conference, supra, at 528: Whereas the latter’s interest in securing employment for postal workers, although distinct from the statute’s goal of providing postal services to the citizenry, at least coincided with that goal a good amount of the time, here the asserted interest (tax collection) and the constitutional goal invoked to vindicate it (free trade) are antithetical. In seeming response to a zone-of-interests argument, the Court quotes, ante, at 449, our statement in Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U. S. 333, 345 (1977), that “the interests of the [Washington State Apple Advertising] Commission itself may be” at issue in the litigation, because “[i]n the event the North Carolina statute results in a contraction of the market for Washington apples or prevents any market expansion that might otherwise occur, it could reduce the amount of the assessments due the Commission.” The Court fails to note that this statement was preceded by the square holding that the State Apple Advertising Commission had standing to sue as an association on behalf of its members, the apple growers and dealers (who were in the same position as the coal companies here): “If the Commission were a voluntary membership organization—a typical trade association—its standing to bring this action as a representative of its constituents would be clear. . . . . . . . . “The only question presented, therefore, is whether, on this record, the Commission’s status as a state agency, rather than a traditional voluntary membership organization, precludes it from asserting the claims of the Washington apple growers and dealers who form its constituency. We think not.” Id., at 342–344. Only after finding associational standing did we speculate, in the passage the Court quotes, that the commission itself