Facts: Ps who used national parks and forests challenged the ICC order raising railway freight rates. They claim their pleadings alleged that they were "adversely affected"
Held: Ps had standing - order would raise the price of recycled materials thereby discouraging the use of such materials leading in turn to increased mining operations which would result in harm to parks and forests. Allegations were sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.
Analysis: Just because many persons share the same injury is not a reason to disqualify review.
-Ps here, unike those in Sierra, claimed the specific and illegal action that would directly harm their use of Wash. Metropolitan Area. If Ds think that allegations are untrue then they should have moved for summary judgment on the standing issue.
-Fn 5 rejects govt's request on limit standing to those who are significantly affected by agency action even if we could begin to define what such a test would mean Injury in fact reflects statutory requirement that a person be adversely affected and distinguishes those with a direct stake form those with a mere interest.
Note: although not expressly overruled it is doubtful that this case would be followed today see Lujan v. Federation- which limits it cases where D attacks standing through a motion to dismiss rather than a SJ.