In the 1973 case National Railroad Passenger Corp. et al. v. National Association of Railroad Passengers, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a private organization did not have standing to sue on behalf of its members for non-statutory review of federal administrative action unless it could demonstrate actual or threatened injury in fact to those members' interests. The case arose when the National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP) sued Amtrak and other defendants over changes in train services which they claimed violated statutory requirements set by Congress when it created Amtrak as a quasi-public corporation to provide intercity passenger rail service nationwide. However, NARP failed to show how these changes would harm their members directly rather than just being contrary to their policy preferences about national rail service provision.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of National Railroad Passenger Corp. et al. v. National Association of Railroad Passengers, Justice Douglas argued that Congress intended to create a private right of action when it enacted the Rail Passenger Service Act in 1970 and therefore disagreed with the majority's interpretation that only "the Corporation" could sue under this law. He pointed out that Congress had explicitly stated its intent to protect rail passengers' rights and interests, which would be undermined if they were not allowed to bring lawsuits themselves. Furthermore, he noted that there was no explicit language in the statute limiting who could sue under it, suggesting that such limitations should not be read into it by courts without clear evidence from Congress itself.