The U.S. Supreme Court case Block, Secretary of Agriculture, et al. v. Community Nutrition Institute et al., 1983 revolved around the interpretation of a statute that allowed for judicial review of certain actions by the Secretary of Agriculture related to marketing orders affecting milk prices. The Community Nutrition Institute and other consumer groups argued they had standing to challenge these orders because they affected retail dairy prices and thus harmed consumers indirectly. However, the court ruled in favor of John R.Block (Secretary) stating that Congress intended only those directly regulated - producers and handlers - could seek judicial review under this law not consumers or consumer advocacy groups like CNI who are indirectly affected by such regulations.

In the dissenting opinion for Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that consumers should have standing to challenge milk market orders issued by the Secretary of Agriculture under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. He disagreed with the majority's interpretation that only producers and handlers were intended to be protected by this act, arguing instead that it was designed to serve broader public interests including those of consumers. He also criticized their narrow reading of "adversely affected or aggrieved," stating it contradicted previous court rulings which interpreted these terms more broadly in favor of granting review. Furthermore, he contended that denying consumer challenges would leave no one able to ensure fair pricing as producers and handlers had vested interests in higher prices while government oversight could not always be relied upon due to potential bureaucratic failures or political pressures.