US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Petitioners, who are tenant farmers eligible for payments under the upland cotton program, enacted as part of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965, challenge the validity of an amended regulation issued b the Secretary of Agriculture in 1966. The program incorporates § 8(g) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, thereby permitting participating farmers to assign payments only "as security for cash or advances to finance making a crop." The 1966 amendment changed the definition of "making a crop" to permit assignments to secure "the payment of cash rent for land used." Petitioners seek a declaratory judgment holding the amended regulation invalid and an injunction prohibiting respondent federal officials from permitting assignments to petitioners' landlord, claiming that he can now demand assignments as a condition of leasing and that the tenants, who lack any other source of cash or credit, are reduced to obtaining all other necessities from the landlord at high prices and rates of interest. The District Court held that petitioners lacked standing to maintain the action, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held:

1. Petitioners have standing to maintain this suit. Data Processing Service v. Camp, ante, p. 397 U. S. 150. Pp. 397 U. S. 164-167.

(a) Petitioners have the personal stake and interest that impart the concrete adverseness required by Article III of the Constitution. P. 397 U. S. 164.

(b) Petitioners are clearly within the zone of interests protected by the Food and Agriculture Act, and they are persons "aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute," as set forth in § 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Pp. 397 U. S. 164-165.

2. The statutory scheme evinces a congressional intent that there may be judicial review of the Secretary's action. Pp. 397 U. S. 165-167.

District Court judgment and 398 F.2d 398, vacated and remanded. chanrobles.com-red

Page 397 U. S. 160