author: Chief Justice Burger

text:
    NEW ENGLAND POWER CO. v. NEW HAMPSHIRE et al.
    No. 80-1208.
    Argued December 7, 1981
    Decided February 24, 1982

      Burger, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      Samuel Huntington argued the cause for appellant in No. 80-1208. With him on the briefs were John F. Sherman III, Edward Berlin, Carmen D. Legato, and J. Phillip Jordan. Donald K. Stem, Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts, argued the cause for appellants in Nos. 80-1471 and 80-1610. With him on the brief for appellants in No. 80-1471 were Francis X. Bellotti, Attorney General, Thomas R. Kiley, First Assistant Attorney General, and Joan C. Stod-

      dard, E. Michael Sloman, and Alan Sherr, Assistant Attorneys General. Dennis J. Roberts II, Attorney General of Rhode Island, and John R. McDermott filed a brief for appellants in No. 80-1610.

      Gregory H. Smith, Attorney General of New Hampshire, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief was Peter C. Scott, Assistant Attorney General.

      Together with No. 80-1471, Massachusetts et al. v. New Hampshire et al.; and No. 80-1610, Roberts, Attorney General of Rhode Island, et al. v. New Hampshire et al., also on appeal from the same court.

       Briefs of amid curiae urging reversal were filed by Acting Solicitor General Wallace, Stuart A. Smith, and Jerome M. Feit for the United States et al.; by Robert L. Baum and Ronald D. Jones for the Edison Electric Institute; by Joseph D. Alvaini for the New England Legal Foundation et al.; by James R. McIntosh and Allan B. Taylor for the New England Power Pool Executive Committee; and by Robert C. McDiarmid for the Unaffiliated Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Customers of New England Power Co.

   Chief Justice Burger

delivered the opinion of the Court.

These three consolidated appeals present the question whether a state can constitutionally prohibit the exportation of hydroelectric energy produced within its borders by a federally licensed facility, or otherwise reserve for its own citizens the “economic benefit” of such hydroelectric power.

I

Appellant New England Power Co. is a public utility which generates and transmits electricity at wholesale. It sells 75% of its power in Massachusetts and much of the remainder in Rhode Island; less than 6% of New Hampshire’s population is serviced by New England Power’s wholesale customers. New England Power owns and operates six hydroelectric generating stations on the Connecticut River, consisting of 27 generating units. Twenty-one of these units—with a capacity of 419.8 megawatts, or about 10% of New England Power’s total generating capacity—are located within the State of New Hampshire. The units are licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission pursuant to Part I of the Federal Power Act, 41 Stat. 1063, as amended, 16 U. S. C. §§ 791a-823 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). Since hydroelectric facilities operate without significant fuel consumption, these units can produce electricity at substantially lower cost than most other generating sources.

New England Power is a member of the New England Power Pool, whose utility-members own over 98% of the total generation capacity, and virtually all of the transmission facilities, in the six-state region. The objectives of the Power Pool, as described in the agreement among its members, are to assure the reliability of the region’s bulk power supply and to attain “maximum practicable economy” through, inter alia, “joint planning, central dispatching . . . and coordinated construction, operation and maintenance of electric generation and transmission facilities owned or controlled by the Participants . . . .” New England Power Pool Agreement §4.1, App. 31a. All member-owned generating facilities are placed under the control of the Power Pool’s Dispatch Center. A computer calculates the cost of generation for each generating unit and assigns each unit an operating schedule that will minimize the cost of the region’s total power supply. Power generated at the various units, including New England Power’s Connecticut River hydroelectric stations, flows freely through the Pool’s regional transmission network, or “grid.” The energy is dispatched to members’ customers as their power needs arise, without regard to generating source. The Pool bills each member the amount it would have cost the utility to meet its customers’ load using only its own generating sources, minus that member’s share of the savings resulting from the centralized dispatch system.

A New Hampshire statute, enacted in 1913, provides:

“No corporation engaged in the generation of electrical energy by water power shall engage in the business of transmitting or conveying the same beyond the confines of the state, unless it shall first file notice of its intention so to do with the public utilities commission and obtain an order of said commission permitting it to engage in such business.” N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §374:35 (1966).

The statute empowers the New Hampshire Commission to prohibit the exportation of such electrical energy when it determines that the energy “is reasonably required for use within this state and that the public good requires that it be delivered for such use.” Ibid.

Since 1926, New England Power or a predecessor company periodically applied for and obtained approval from the New Hampshire Commission to transmit electricity produced at the Connecticut River plants to points outside New Hampshire. However, on September 19, 1980, after an investigation and hearings, the Commission withdrew the authority formerly granted New England Power to export its hydroelectric energy, and ordered the company to “make arrangements to sell the previously exported hydroelectric energy to persons, utilities and municipalities within the State of New Hampshire . . . .” In its report accompanying the order, the Commission found that New Hampshire’s population and energy needs were increasing rapidly; that, primarily because of its low “generating mix” of hydroelectric energy, the Public Service Company of New Hampshire, the State’s largest electric utility, had generating costs about 25% higher than those of New England Power; and that if New England Power’s hydroelectric energy were sold exclusively in New Hampshire, New Hampshire customers could save approximately $25 million a year. The Commission therefore concluded that New England Power’s hydroelectric energy was “required for use within the State” of New Hampshire, and that discontinuation of its exportation would serve the “public good.” App. to Juris. Statement in No. 80-1208, pp. 25-39.

The Commission did not, however, order New England Power to sever its connections with the Power Pool. So long as the electricity produced at New England Power’s hydroelectric plants continues to flow through the Pool’s regional transmission network, it will be impossible to contain that electricity within the State of New Hampshire in any physical sense. Although the precise contours of the Commission’s order are unclear, it appears to require that New England Power sell electricity to New Hampshire utilities in an amount equal to the output of its in-state hydroelectric facilities, at special rates adjusted to reflect the entire savings attributable to the low-cost hydroelectric generation.

New England Power, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and Dennis J. Roberts II, Attorney General of Rhode Island, appealed the Commission’s order to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire. They contended that the order was pre-empted by Parts I and II of the Federal Power Act, 16 U. S. C. §§791a-824k (1976 ed. and Supp. IV), and imposed impermissible burdens on interstate commerce. The court rejected these arguments, concluding that the “saving clause” of § 201(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U. S. C. §824(b) (1976 ed., Supp. IV), granted New Hampshire authority to restrict the interstate transportation of hydroelectric power generated within the State. Appeal of New England Power Co., 120 N. H. 866, 870-877, 424 A. 2d 807, 814 (1980). The court further held that the New Hampshire Commission’s order did not interfere with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s exclusive regulatory authority over rates charged for interstate sales of electricity at wholesale. It thus remanded the case to permit the parties to “develop the mechanics of implemention” of the New Hampshire Commission’s order, and mandated that New England Power “make appropriate adjustments and filings with the appropriate federal and State administrative agencies to enable New Hampshire to regain the benefit of its hydroelectric power.” Id., at 878-879, 424 A. 2d, at 815.

We noted probable jurisdiction, 451 U. S. 981 (1981), and we reverse.

M h-H

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire recognized that, absent authorizing federal legislation, it would be “questionable” whether a state could constitutionally restrict interstate trade in hydroelectric power. 120 N. H., at 876, 424 A. 2d, at 814. Our cases consistently have held that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, precludes a state from mandating that its residents be given a preferred right of access, over out-of-state consumers, to natural resources located within its borders or to the products derived therefrom. E. g., Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U. S. 322 (1979); Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U. S. 553 (1923); West v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 221 U. S. 229 (1911). Only recently, in Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U. S. 617, 627 (1978), we reiterated that “[tjhese cases stand for the basic principle that a ‘State is without power to prevent privately owned articles of trade from being shipped and sold in interstate commerce on the ground that they are required to satisfy local demands or because they are needed by the people of the State’ ” (quoting Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel, 278 U. S. 1, 10 (1928)).

The order of the New Hampshire Commission, prohibiting New England Power from selling its hydroelectric energy outside the State of New Hampshire, is precisely the sort of protectionist regulation that the Commerce Clause declares off-limits to the states. The Commission has made clear that its order is designed to gain an economic advantage for New Hampshire citizens at the expense of New England Power’s customers in neighboring states. Moreover, it cannot be disputed that the Commission’s “exportation ban” places direct and substantial burdens on transactions in interstate commerce. See Public Utilities Comm’n v. Attleboro Steam & Electric Co., 273 U. S. 83 (1927). Such state-imposed burdens cannot be squared with the Commerce Clause when they serve only to advance “simple economic protectionism.” Philadelphia v. New Jersey, supra, at 624.

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire nevertheless upheld the order of the New Hampshire Commission on the ground that § 201(b) of the Federal Power Act expressly permits the State to prohibit the exportation of hydroelectric power produced within its borders. It is indeed well settled that Congress may use its powers under the Commerce Clause to “[confer] upon the States an ability to restrict the flow of interstate commerce that they would not otherwise enjoy.” Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U. S. 27, 44 (1980). See Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona ex rel. Sullivan, 325 U. S. 761, 769 (1945). The dispositive question, however, is whether Congress in fact has authorized the states to impose restrictions of the sort at issue here.

Ill

The national concern for planning, development, and comprehensive utilization of the country’s water resources was very early expressed by Congress under its Commerce Clause powers. The Federal Water Power Act, now Part I of the Federal Power Act, 16 U. S. C. §§791a-823 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV), was enacted in 1920. The potential of water power as a source of electric energy led Congress to exercise its constitutional authority over navigable streams to regulate and encourage development of hydroelectric power generation “to meet the needs of an expanding economy.” FPC v. Union Electric Co., 381 U. S. 90. 99 (1965).

In 1935, Congress enacted Part II of the Federal Power Act, 16 U. S. C. §§ 824-824k (1976 ed. and Supp. IV), which delegated to the Federal Power Commission, now the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, exclusive authority to regulate the transmission and sale at wholesale of electric energy in interstate commerce, without regard to the source of production. United States v. Public Utilities Comm’n of California, 345 U. S. 295 (1953). The 1935 enactment was a “direct result” of this Court’s holding in Public Utilities Comm’n v. Attleboro Steam & Electric Co., supra, that the states lacked power to regulate the rates governing interstate sales of electricity for resale. United States v. Public Utilities Comm’n of California, supra, at 311. Part II of the Act was intended to “fill the gap” created by Attleboro by establishing exclusive federal jurisdiction over such sales. 345 U. S., at 307-311.

Section 201(b) of the Act provides, inter alia, that the provisions of Part II “shall not. . . deprive a State or State commission of its lawful authority now exercised over the exportation of hydroelectric energy which is transmitted across a State line.” However, this provision is in no sense an affirmative grant of power to the states to burden interstate commerce “in a manner which would otherwise not be permissible.” Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona ex rel. Sullivan, supra, at 769. In § 201(b), Congress did no more than leave standing whatever valid state laws then existed relating to the exportation of hydroelectric energy; by its plain terms, § 201(b) simply saves from pre-emption under Part II of the Federal Power Act such state authority as was otherwise “lawful.” The legislative history of the Act likewise indicates that Congress intended only that its legislation “tak[e] no authority from State commissions.” H. R. Rep. No. 1318, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 8 (1935) (emphasis added). Nothing in the legislative history or language of the statute evinces a congressional intent “to alter the limits of state power otherwise imposed by the Commerce Clause,” United States v. Public Utilities Comm’n of California, supra, at 304, or to modify the earlier holdings of this Court concerning the limits of state authority to restrain interstate trade. E. g., Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U. S. 553 (1923); West v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 221 U. S. 229 (1911). Rather, Congress’ concern was simply “to define the extent of the federal legislation’s pre-emptive effect on state law.” Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., supra, at 49.

To support its argument to the contrary, New Hampshire relies on a single statement made on the floor of the House of Representatives during the debates preceding enactment of Part II. Congressman Rogers of New Hampshire stated:

“[T]he Senate bill as originally drawn would deprive certain States, I think five in all, of certain rights which they have over the exportation of hydroelectric energy which is transmitted across the State line. This situation has been taken care of by the House committee, and I hope when you come to it, section 201 of part II, that you will grant us the privilege to continue, as we have been for 22 years, to exercise our State right over the exportation of hydroelectric energy transmitted across State lines but produced up there in the granite hills of old New Hampshire.” 79 Cong. Rec. 10527 (1935).

From this expression of “hope,” New Hampshire concludes that Congress specifically intended to preserve the very statute at issue here.

Reliance on such isolated fragments of legislative history in divining the intent of Congress is an exercise fraught with hazards, and “a step to be taken cautiously. ” Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc., 430 U. S. 1, 26 (1977); United States v. Public Utilities Comm’n of California, supra, at 319-321 (Jackson, J., concurring). However, even were we to accord significant weight to Congressman Rogers’ statement, it would not support New Hampshire’s contention that § 201(b) was intended to permit states to regulate free from Commerce Clause restraint. Congressman Rogers simply urged his colleagues not to “deprive” the State of New Hampshire of “rights” it already possessed — i. e., to ensure that the Act itself would not be read as pre-empting otherwise valid state legislation.

To be sure, some Members of Congress may have thought that no further protection of state authority was needed. Indeed, given that the Commerce Clause — independently of the Federal Power Act — restricts the ability of the states to regulate matters affecting interstate trade in hydroelectric energy, § 201(b) may in fact save little in the way of “lawful” state authority. But when Congress has not “expressly stated its intent and policy” to sustain state legislation from attack under the Commerce Clause, Prudential Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, 328 U. S. 408, 427, 431 (1946), we have no authority to rewrite its legislation based on mere speculation as to what Congress “probably had in mind.” See United States v. Public Utilities Comm'n of California, 345 U. S., at 319 (Jackson, J., concurring); see also id., at 311. We must construe § 201(b) as it is written, and as its legislative history indicates it was intended — as a standard “nonpre-emption” clause.

>

We conclude, therefore, that New Hampshire has sought to restrict the flow of privately owned and produced electricity in interstate commerce, in a manner inconsistent with the Commerce Clause. Section 201(b) of the Federal Power Act does not provide an affirmative grant of authority to the State to do so. For these reasons, the judgment of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

       Testimony before the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission in these cases indicated that the savings have been substantial. For example, in 1979, the savings attributable to the Power Pool’s centralized dispatch system were reported at over $44 million. App. 35a, 56a. See generally Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Electric Power Regulation, Power Pooling in the United States 15-23, 39-41, 69-79 (1981), for a description of efficiencies attributable to pooling arrangements.

       The order reads:
      “ORDERED, that the permission granted New England Power Company (NEPCO) to transmit hydroelectric energy from within the boundaries of the State to outside the State is hereby withdrawn as of thirty (30) days from the date of this Order; and it is
      “FURTHER ORDERED, that NEPCO make arrangements to sell the previously exported hydroelectric energy to persons, utilities and municipalities within the State of New Hampshire within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order; and it is
      “FURTHER ORDERED, that upon the completion of both units at Seabrook the Commission will again re-examine the issue of exportation.”

       For example, the Commission’s staff economist testified at the hearings that New England Power could “allocate the benefits of low-cost hydroelectric power to New Hampshire through billing mechanisms” pursuant to which the power would be sold in New Hampshire at “economic cost”— i. e., the cost of producing the power, including depreciation, plus a return on invested capital. App. 38a-39a. The economist’s analysis of the benefits which would ensue from restricting the “exportation” of hydroelectric energy in this manner — upon which the New Hampshire Commission relied heavily in its report — was based on the assumption that New England Power would simply enter into new unit power contracts with New Hampshire utilities for an amount of kilowatt hours equal to New England Power’s average hydroelectric generation over the course of a number of years. 3 Tr. of Hearings before the N. H. Public Utilities Comm’n in DE 79-223, pp. 23-24, 1-35. Although the record is not entirely clear on this point, it appears that the “economic benefit,” or "savings,” attributable to New England Power's hydroelectric facilities is currently reflected in the company’s general wholesale rates, and thus shared pro rata by its customers in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire. App. 15a-18a. See also Brief for Appellant in No. 80-1208, p. 7.

       The court also dismissed several arguments advanced only by appellants Massachusetts and Roberts — that § 201(b), as so interpreted, exceeded Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause, Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, and violated both the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 1, and the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.

       The parties inform us that the New Hampshire Commission has refrained from acting on remand pending this Court’s disposition of the appeals.

       We find no merit in New Hampshire’s attempt to distinguish these cases on the ground that it “owns” the Connecticut River, the source of New England Power’s hydroelectricity. Whatever the extent of the State’s proprietary interest in the river, the pre-eminent authority to regulate the flow of navigable waters resides with the Federal Government, United States v. Twin City Power Co., 350 U. S. 222 (1956), which has licensed New England Power to operate its Connecticut River hydroelectric plants pursuant to a determination that those facilities are “best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce,” 16 U. S. C. § 803(a). New Hampshire’s purported “ownership” of the Connecticut River therefore provides no justification for restricting or conditioning the use of these federally licensed units. See First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. FPC, 328 U. S. 152 (1946). Moreover, New Hampshire has done more than regulate use of the resource it assertedly owns; it has restricted the sale of electric energy, a product entirely distinct from the river waters used to produce it. See Utah Power & Light Co. v. Pfost, 286 U. S. 165, 179-181 (1932). This product is manufactured by a private corporation using privately owned facilities. Thus, New Hampshire’s reliance on Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U. S. 429 (1980)—holding that a state may confine to its residents the sale of products it produces — is misplaced.

       Indeed, had Congress intended § 201(b) to confer upon the states powers which they would have lacked in the absence of the federal legislation, it would have been anomalous to speak in terms of “authority now exercised.” This language plainly assumes the prior existence of valid state authority; in addition, it appears to limit the saving effect of the provision to those few States in which the authority was in fact “exercised” in 1935.

       On the other hand, it would not have been at all unusual had Congress taken care that the 1935 enactment not displace state authority in the area, without consideration of the scope of that authority or the extent to which it might be constrained by other provisions of federal law. See Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U. S. 304, 329, n. 22 (1981).

       We need not speculate here as to the precise contours of § 201(b)’s saving effect.

       Even were we to conclude that Congress intended §201(b) to override restraints placed on state regulatory power by the Commerce Clause, there would remain a substantial question whether the order of the New Hampshire Commission was entitled to protection under that provision. Section 201(b) seeks to protect only state regulation relating to the “exportation” of hydroelectric power. However, New England Power cannot terminate its out-of-state transmission of hydroelectricity without substantial alterations in the regional transmission- system to which its hydroelectric facilities are connected — alterations which the New Hampshire Commission did not appear to contemplate would be made. Appeal of New England Power Co., 120 N. H. 866, 876-877, 424 A. 2d 807, 814 (1980). The operative effect of the Commission’s order would be to compel New England Power to enter into new wholesale contracts with New Hampshire utilities, at rates fixed by the New Hampshire Commission to reflect the “economic cost” of the company’s hydroelectric production. See supra, at 336, and n. 3. Appellants argue that such state regulation is incompatible with Part II of the Federal Power Act — which vests in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission exclusive ratemaking jurisdiction over “the sale of electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce,” 16 U. S. C. §§ 824(b), 824d-824f (1976 ed. and Supp. IV) — and conflicts directly with § 205(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U. S. C. § 824d(b), which prohibits utilities from maintaining “any unreasonable difference in rates ... as between localities” with respect to sales subject to federal jurisdiction. Given our holding that the New Hampshire Commission’s order violates the Commerce Clause, we need not decide this issue.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    BALDRIGE, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, et al. v. SHAPIRO, ESSEX COUNTY EXECUTIVE
    No. 80-1436.
    Argued December 2, 1981
    Decided February 24, 1982

      Burger, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      Elliott Sckulder argued the cause for petitioners in No. 80-1436 and respondents in No. 80-1781. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Lee, Acting Solicitor General Wallace, Acting Assistant Attorney General Schiffer, Deputy Solicitor General Getter, Leonard Schaitman, Michael Kimmel, and John Cordes.

      George J. Cerrone, Jr., argued the cause for petitioners in No. 80-1781. With him on the briefs was Max P. Zall.

      David H. Ben-Asher argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent in No. 80-1436.

       Together with No. 80-1781, McNichols, Mayor of Denver, et al. v. Baldrige, Secretary of Commerce, et al., on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

         Wilma S. Martinez and Morris J. Bailer filed briefs for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., as amicus curiae urging affirmance in No. 80-1436 and reversal in No. 80-1781.

        John E. Flaherty, Jr., and Malcolm J. Hall filed a brief for Plaintiffs in MDL-444, In re 1980 Decennial Census Adjustment Litigation, as amici curiae urging reversal in No. 80-1781.

        Robert Abrams, Attorney General, Frederick A. 0. Schwarz, Jr., Robert S. Rifkind, Peter Bienstock, and Allen G. Schwartz filed a brief for the State of New York et al. as amici curiae.

   Chief Justice Burger

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari to determine whether lists of addresses collected and utilized by the Bureau of the Census are exempt from disclosure, either by way of civil discovery or the Freedom of Information Act, under, the confidentiality provisions of the Census Act, 13 U. S. C. §§8 and 9.

HH

Under Art. I, § 2, cl. 3, of the United States Constitution, responsibility for conducting the decennial census rests with Congress. Congress has delegated to the Secretary of Commerce the duty to conduct the decennial census, 13 U. S. C. § 141; the Secretary in turn has delegated this function to the Bureau of the Census. 13 U. S. C. § 21.

The 1980 enumeration conducted by the Bureau of the Census indicated that Essex County, N. J., which includes the city of Newark, and Denver, Colo., among other areas, had lost population during the 1970’s. This information was conveyed to the appropriate officials in both Essex County and Denver. Under Bureau procedures a city has 10 working days from receipt of the preliminary counts to challenge the accuracy of the census data. Both Essex County and Denver challenged the census count under the local review procedures. Both proceeded on the theory that the Bureau had erroneously classified occupied dwellings as vacant, and both sought to compel disclosure of a portion of the address lists used by the Bureau in conducting its count in their respective jurisdictions.

A

BALDRIGE v. SHAPIRO (No. 80-1436)

The Essex County Executive filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to compel the Bureau to release the “master address” register under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U. S. C. § 552. The master address register is a listing of such information as addresses, householders’ names, number of housing units, type of census inquiry, and, where applicable, the vacancy status of the unit. The list was compiled initially from commercial mailing address lists and census postal checks, and was updated further through direct responses to census questionnaires, pre- and post-enumeration canvassing by census personnel, and in some instances by a cross-check with the 1970 census data. The Bureau resisted disclosure of the master address list, arguing that 13 U. S. C. §§ 8(b) and 9(a) prohibit disclosure of all raw census data pertaining to particular individuals, including addresses. The Bureau argued that it therefore could lawfully withhold the information under the FOIA pursuant to Exemption 3, which provides that the FOIA does not apply where information is specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. 5 U. S. C. § 552(b)(3).

The District Court concluded that the FOIA required disclosure of the requested information. The court began its analysis by noting that public policy favors disclosure under the FOIA unless the information falls within the statutory exemptions. The District Court concluded that the Census Act did not provide a “blanket of confidentiality” for all census materials. Rather, the confidentiality limitation is “solely to require that census material be used in furtherance of the Bureau’s statistical mission and to ensure against disclosure of any particular individual’s response.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 10a. The court noted that Essex County did not seek access to individual census reports or information relative to particular individuals, but sought access to the address list exclusively for statistical purposes in conjunction with the Bureau’s own program of local review. In addition, the Secretary is authorized by the Census Act to utilize county employees if they are sworn to observe the limitations of the statute. The District Court concluded that the Bureau’s claim of confidentiality impeded the goal of accurate and complete enumeration. Finally, the District Court found that the information sought was not derived from the questionnaires received, but rather from data available prior to the census. The District Court ordered the Bureau to make available the address register of all property in the county, with the proviso that all persons using the records be sworn to secrecy. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed for the reasons stated by the District Court. App. to Pet. for Cert. la. Judgment order reported at 636 F. 2d 1210 (1980).

B

McNICHOLS v. BALDRIGE (No. 80-1781)

The city of Denver, through its officials, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado seeking a preliminary injunction to require the Bureau to cooperate with the city in verifying its vacancy data. The District Court did not rule on the preliminary injunction, but instead focused on whether the city of Denver was entitled to the vacancy information contained in the updated master address registers maintained by the Bureau. The District Court granted the city of Denver’s discovery request for this information. The court concluded that the city should have access to the information because without the address list the city was denied any meaningful ability to challenge the Bureau’s data. In light of what it deemed the important constitutional and statutory rights involved, the District Court concluded that the purposes of § 9 of the Census Act could be maintained without denying the city the right of discovery. The District Court entered a detailed order to protect the confidentiality of the information.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed. 644 F. 2d 844 (1981). The Court of Appeals relied on the “express language” of the statute and on the “'emphatically expressed intent of Congress to protect census information.’ ” Id., at 845, quoting Seymour v. Barabba, 182 U. S. App. D. C. 185, 188, 559 F. 2d 806, 809 (1977). The court reasoned that Congress has the power to make census information immune from direct discovery or disclosure. The court concluded that Congress has neither made nor implied an exception covering this case. The Court of Appeals also found no indication that Congress is constitutionally required to provide the city with information to challenge the census data. The court concluded that the city of Denver’s remedy must lie with Congress.

Thus, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ordered disclosure of the master address list under the FOIA. App. to Pet. for Cert. la. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied discovery of similar information, concluding that the data was privileged from disclosure. 644 F. 2d 844 (1981). We granted certio-rari in these cases to determine whether such information is to be disclosed under either of the requested procedures. 451 U. S. 936 (1981); 452 U. S. 937 (1981).

B

<

The broad mandate of the FOIA is to provide for open disclosure of public information. The Act expressly recognizes, however, that public disclosure is not always in the public interest and consequently provides that agency records may be withheld from disclosure under any one of the nine exemptions defined in 5 U. S. C. § 552(b). Under Exemption 3 disclosure need not be made as to information “specifically exempted from disclosure by statute” if the statute affords the agency no discretion on disclosure, or establishes particular criteria for withholding the data, or refers to the particular types of material to be withheld. The question in Baldrige v. Shapiro, No. 80-1436, is twofold: first, do §§ 8(b) and 9(a) of the Census Act constitute a statutory exception to disclosure within the meaning of Exemption 3; and second, is the requested data included within the protection of §§ 8(b) and 9(a).

B

Although the national census mandated by Art. I, § 2, of the Constitution fulfills many important and valuable functions for the benefit of the country as a whole, its initial constitutional purpose was to provide a basis for apportioning representatives among the states in the Congress. The census today serves an important function in the allocation of federal grants to states based on population. In addition, the census also provides important data for Congress and ultimately for the private sector.

Although Congress has broad power to require individuals to submit responses, an accurate census depends in large part on public cooperation. To stimulate that cooperation Congress has provided assurances that information furnished to the Secretary by individuals is to be treated as confidential. 13 U. S. C. §§ 8(b), 9(a). Section 8(b) of the Census Act provides that subject to specified limitations, “the Secretary [of Commerce] may furnish copies of tabulations and other statistical materials which do not disclose the information reported by, or on behalf of, any particular respondent . . . .” Section 9(a) provides farther assurances of confidentiality:

“Neither the Secretary, nor any other officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof, may, except as provided in section 8 of this title—
“(1) use the information furnished under the provisions of this title for any purpose other than the statistical purposes for which it is supplied; or
“(2) make any publication whereby the data furnished by any particular establishment or individual under this title can be identified; or
“(3) permit anyone other than the sworn officers and employees of the Department or bureau or agency thereof to examine the individual reports.”

Sections 8(b) and 9(a) explicitly provide for the nondisclosure of certain census data. No discretion is provided to the Census Bureau on whether or not to disclose the information referred to in §§ 8(b) and 9(a). Sections 8(b) and 9(a) of the Census Act therefore qualify as withholding statutes under Exemption 3. Raw census data is protected under the §§ 8(b) and 9(a) exemptions, however, only to the extent that the data is within the confidentiality provisions of the Act.

C

Essex County and various amici vigorously argue that § § 8(b) and 9(a) of the Census Act are designed to prohibit disclosure of the identities of individuals who provide raw census data; for this reason, they argue, the confidentiality provisions protect raw data only if the individual respondent can be identified. The unambiguous language of the confidentiality provisions, as well as the legislative history of the Act, however, indicates that Congress plainly contemplated that raw data reported by or on behalf of individuals was to be held confidential and not available for disclosure.

We begin first with the language of §§ 8(b) and 9(a). Watt v. Energy Action Educational Foundation, 454 U. S. 151 (1981). Section 8(b) allows the Secretary to provide statistical materials “which do not disclose the information reported by, or on behalf of, any particular respondent. . . .” (Emphasis added.) The focus of § 9(a) is also on the information that constitutes the statistical compilation. The Secretary is prohibited from using the “information” except for statistical purposes and is prohibited from publication “whereby the data furnished by any particular establishment or individual under this title can be identified . . . .” (Emphasis added.)

The language of each section refers to protection of the “information” or “data” compiled. In addition, the provisions of § 8(b) prohibit disclosure of data provided “by, or on behalf of,” any respondent. By protecting data revealed “on behalf of” a respondent, Congress further emphasized that the data itself was to be protected from disclosure.

The legislative history also makes clear that Congress was concerned not solely with protecting the identity of individuals. Since 1879 Congress has expressed its concern that confidentiality of data reported by individuals also be preserved. At that time each census taker was required by law to take an oath “not [to] disclose any information contained in the schedules, lists, or statements.” Act of Mar. 3, 1879, ch. 195, §7, 20 Stat. 475, and Act of Apr. 20, 1880, ch. 57, 21 Stat. 75. As a result of the detailed questions asked in the 1880 and 1890 censuses, Congress amended the Census Act to broaden the confidentiality protections. Act of Mar. 3, 1899, ch. 419, §21, 30 Stat. 1020. The law restricted disclosure unless the Director of the Census authorized that the information be revealed. The governor of any state or the chief officer of any municipal government upon request, however, could receive a list of individuals counted within the territory of the jurisdiction. § 30, 30 Stat. 1021. The Director of the Census frequently was asked to disclose information to cities complaining of undercounts. For example, data was revealed to New York City after the 1890 census in order to allow the city to challenge the accuracy of the federal count. House Committee on the Eleventh Census, Reenu-meration of New York City, 51st Cong., 2d Sess. (1890). See also Decennial Census, at 113-138.

In 1929 Congress again amended the Census Act and provided the confidentiality provisions of § 9. Act of June 18, 1929, ch. 28, § 11, 46 Stat. 25. The amendment gave the Director of the Census no discretion to release data, regardless of the claimed beneficial effect of disclosure. The confidentiality provisions extended to all information collected by the Bureau of the Census. Decennial Census, at 116. No special access was granted to states or municipalities. In 1976 the confidentiality provision of § 8 was strengthened “to add further protection of privacy” by prohibiting disclosure of information “reported by, or on behalf of, any respondent.” S. Rep. No. 94-1256, pp. £4 (1976). See also H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 94-1719, p. 10 (1976). The prohibitions of disclosure of “material which might disclose information reported by, or on behalf of, any respondent” extend both to “public and private entities,” S. Rep. No. 94-1256, supra, at 4, further indicating that the municipalities requesting disclosure of raw census data have no special claim to the information.

The foregoing history of the Census Act reveals a congressional intent to protect the confidentiality of census information by prohibiting disclosure of raw census data reported by or on behalf of individuals. Subsequent congressional action is consistent with this interpretation. In response to claimed undercounts in the census of 1960 and of 1970, Congress considered, but ultimately rejected, proposals to allow local officials limited access to census data in order to challenge the census count. See H. R. 8871, 95 Cong., 1st Sess. (1977); Hearings on H. R. 8871 before the Subcommittee on Census and Population of the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977).

A list of vacant addresses is part of the raw census data— the information — intended by Congress to be protected. The list of addresses requested by the County of Essex constitutes “information reported by, or on behalf of,” individuals responding to the census. The initial list of addresses is taken from prior censuses and mailing lists. This information then is verified both by direct mailings and census enumerators who go to areas not responding. See, e. g., 1980 Census Questionnaire, Question No. H4 (“How many living quarters, occupied and vacant, are at this address?”). As with all the census material, the information on vacancies was updated from data obtained from neighbors and others who spoke with the followup census enumerators. The final master address list therefore includes data reported by or on behalf of individuals.

Under the clear language of the Census Act it is not relevant that the municipalities seeking the data will use it only for statistical purposes. Section 9(a)(1) permits use of the data only for “the statistical purposes for which it is supplied.” There is no indication in the Census Act that the hundreds of municipal governments in the 50 states were intended by Congress to be the “monitors” of the Census Bureau. In addition, limiting use of data only for “statistical” purposes in no way indicates that raw data may be revealed outside the strict requirements of the Census Act that data be handled by census employees sworn to secrecy.

Because §§ 8(b) and 9(a) of the Census Act constitute withholding statutes under Exemption 3 of the FOIA and because the raw census data in this case was intended to be protected from disclosure within those provisions of the Census Act, the requested information is not subject to disclosure under the FOIA.

HH HH H-H

The discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, similar to the FOIA, are designed to encourage open exchange of information by litigants in federal courts. Unlike the FOIA, however, the discovery provisions under the Federal Rules focus upon the need for the information rather than a broad statutory grant of disclosure. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides for access to all information “relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action” unless the information is privileged. If a privilege exists, information may be withheld, even if relevant to the lawsuit and essential to the establishment of plaintiffs claim.

It is well recognized that a privilege may be created by statute. A statute granting a privilege is to be strictly construed so as “to avoid a construction that would suppress otherwise competent evidence.” St. Regis Paper Co. v. United States, 368 U. S. 208, 218 (1961). In the case of the city of Denver, the central inquiry is whether §§ 8(b) and 9(a) create a privilege so as to protect against disclosure of the raw census data requested.

As noted above, § 8(b) and § 9(a) of the Census Act embody explicit congressional intent to preclude all disclosure of raw census data reported by or on behalf of individuals. This strong policy of nondisclosure indicates that Congress intended the confidentiality provisions to constitute a “privilege” within the meaning of the Federal Rules. Disclosure by way of civil discovery would undermine the very purpose of confidentiality contemplated by Congress. One such purpose was to encourage public participation and maintain public confidence that information given to the Census Bureau would not be disclosed. The general public, whose cooperation is essential for an accurate census, would not be concerned with the underlying rationale for disclosure of data that had been accumulated under assurances of confidentiality. Congress concluded in §§ 8(b) and 9(a) that only a bar on disclosure of all raw data reported by or on behalf of individuals would serve the function of assuring public confidence. This was within congressional discretion, for Congress is vested by the Constitution with authority to conduct the census “as they shall by Law direct.” The wisdom of its classifications is not for us to decide in light of Congress’ 180 years’ experience with the census process.

This is not to say that the city of Denver does not also have important reasons for requesting the raw census data for purposes of its civil suit. A finding of “privilege,” however, shields the requested information from disclosure despite the need demonstrated by the litigant.

IV

We hold that whether sought by way of requests under the FOIA or by way of discovery rules, raw data reported by or on behalf of individuals need not be disclosed. Congress, of course, can authorize disclosure in executing its constitutional obligation to conduct a decennial census. But until Congress alters its clear provisions under §§ 8(b) and 9(a) of the Census Act, its mandate is to be followed by the courts.

Accordingly the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in No. 80-1436 is reversed, and the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in No. 80-1781 is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

       Article I, § 2, cl. 3, provides:
      “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. . . .”
      Article I, § 2, cl. 3, was amended by § 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to provide:
      “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.”
      The Sixteenth Amendment also altered cl. 3 to provide for direct taxation without apportionment among the states and without regard to any census or enumeration.

       See Revised Local Review Program Information Booklet (Apr. 1980), App. in No. 80-1436, pp. 22-48.

       Under 5 U. S. C. § 552(a)(4)(B), “the district court of the United States in the district in which the complainant resides . . . has jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant.”

       We note in passing that there is no provision in the FOIA for this procedure.

       Jurisdiction in the District Court for the District of Colorado was invoked under 28 U. S. C. §§ 1331, 1337, 1361, 2201, and 2202, under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U. S. C. § 552, under 5 U. S. C. §§ 702, 704, and 706, and under U. S. Const., Art. I, §2, cl. 3. The city argued that as a result of the erroneous undercount, Denver would be underrepresented in Congress and would be deprived of certain federal funds to which it otherwise would be entitled under the federal grant-in-aid programs that distribute funds on the basis of population. The city also argued that it would be underrepresented in the state legislature because under the Colorado Constitution apportionment of state legislative districts is based on the federal census. Colo. Const., Art. V, §48.
      The city of Denver originally sought a temporary restraining order to require the Bureau to keep open its Denver offices. The parties agreed that the offices could close so long as the Bureau kept its updated master address lists in Denver.

       The District Court ordered that (1) the Government must produce the updated master address registers, described as “Follow-up Address Registers” (FAR’s), or a list of vacant addresses culled from the FAR’s; (2) all names and other identifying references must be eliminated; (3) all city employees with access to the information must take an oath of secrecy; (4) the information must be used only for adjustment of the census; and (5) Bureau officials may at their option accompany city employees as they verify the information.

       This principle has been reiterated frequently by this Court. See, e.g., Weinberger v. Catholic Action of Hawaii/Peace Education Project, 454 U. S. 139 (1981); NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U. S. 214, 220 (1978); EPA v. Mink, 410 U. S. 73, 80 (1973).

       As originally enacted the decennial census was to serve both for apportioning representatives and apportioning direct taxes among the states. The ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 amended Art. I, § 2, to provide for direct taxation without apportionment.
      Even the first census takers, who had a relatively small population to deal with, encountered difficulty in taking a national census. 31 The Writings of George Washington 329 (J. Fitzpatrick ed. 1939) (“Returns of the Census have already been made from several of the States and a tolerably just estimate has been formed now in others, by which it appears that we shall hardly reach four millions; but one thing is certain our real numbers will exceed, greatly, the official returns of them; because the religious scruples of some, would not allow them to give in their lists; the fears of others that it was intended as the foundation of a tax induced them to conceal or diminished theirs, and thro’ the indolence of the people, and the negligence of many of the Officers numbers are omitted”); 8 The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 229 (A. Lipscomb ed. 1903) (Aug. 24,1791, letter to Wm. Carmi-cl je!) (“I enclose you a copy of our census .... Making very small allowance for omissions, which we know to have been very great, we may safely say we are above four millions”).

       The information obtained from the national census is used for such varied purposes as computing federal grant-in-aid benefits, drafting of legislation, urban and regional planning, business planning, and academic and so-eial studies. See Subcommittee on Census and Population of the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, The Use of Population Data in Federal Assistance Programs, Ser. No. 95-16 (Committee Print compiled by the Library of Congress 1978); S. Rep. No. 94-1256, p. 1 (1976).
      During congressional debates James Madison emphasized the importance of census information beyond the constitutionally designated purposes and encouraged the new Congress to “embrace some other subjects besides the bare enumeration of the inhabitants.”
      “This kind of information, [Madison] observed, all legislatures had wished for; but this kind of information had never been obtained in any country. ... If the plan was pursued in taking every future census, it would give them an opportunity of marking the progress of the society, and distinguishing the growth of every interest.” 13 The Papers of James Madison 8-9 (C. Hobson & R. Rutland eds. 1981) (Debate of Jan. 25,1790). A bill for obtaining information as described by Mr. Madison passed the House of Representatives but “was thrown out by the Senate as a waste of trouble and supplying materials for idle people to make a book.” Letter to Thomas Jefferson, id., at 41.

       Respondent Shapiro does not dispute this conclusion. See Brief for Respondent in No. 80-1436, p. 8. The legislative history of the FOIA clearly indicates that Congress recognized that the Census Act constituted a specific exemption under Exemption 3. See, e. g., S. Rep. No. 1621, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., 9 (1958); 104 Cong. Rec. 6549-6550 (1958) (remarks of Rep. Moss); 112 Cong. Rec. 13646 (1966) (remarks of Rep. Olsen) (“information ... or sources of information” given to the Bureau of the Census will be held confidential under Exemption 3); H. R. Rep. No. 1497, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966); 122 Cong. Rec. 24211 (1976) (remarks of Reps. Abzug and McCloskey).

       Concern for confidentiality in census taking was expressed as early as the 1840 census in which each census enumerator was instructed to “consider all communications made to him in the performance of [his] duty, relative to the business of the people, as strictly confidential.” Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation and Federal Services of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, The Decennial Census: An Analysis and Review, 96th Cong., 2d Sess., 113 (Committee Print compiled by the Library of Congress 1980) (hereinafter Decennial Census). See also A. Scott, Census, U. S. A. 29 (1968). The 1870 census instructions emphatically stated that “[a]ll disclosures should be treated as strictly confidential, with the exception hereafter to be noted in the case of the mortality schedule. . . .” Decennial Census, at 114. The 1909 revisions of the Census Act stated that “[n]o publication shall be made by the Census Office whereby the data furnished by any particular establishment can be identified . . . .” Act of July 2, 1909, ch. 2, § 25, 36 Stat. 9 (emphasis added). See also Act of Apr. 2, 1924, ch. 80, § 3, 43 Stat. 31; Act of June 18,1929, ch. 28, § 8, 46 Stat. 23; Act of July 25, 1947, ch. 331, 61 Stat. 458; Act of Aug. 31,1954, Pub. L. 740, 68 Stat. 1013-1014; Act of Oct! 15,1962, Pub. L. 87-813, 76 Stat. 922 (overriding decision in St. Regis Paper Co. v. United States, 368 U. S. 208 (1961), by prohibiting disclosure of copy of census report retained by business establishment).
      For a more detailed history of the provisions of confidentiality see C. Kaplan & T. Van Valey, Census ’80: Continuing the Factfinder Tradition 68-71 (U. S. Dept, of Commerce, 1980).
      Recognition of the need for some degree of confidentiality of cénsus materials is indicated in the confidentiality provisions of several foreign nations. Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, and Sweden make some provision for the confidentiality of census materials. See Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, Laws on the Confidentiality of Census Records in Western Europe, Canada, and Japan, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. (Committee Print compiled by the Library of Congress 1976).

       Congress may well have concluded that the controversy over the “vacant” or “occupied” status of property months after the census was taken could lead to interminable litigation and impair the constitutional and statutory purposes of the census.
      Approximately 50 lawsuits have been brought by local governments claiming an undercount from the 1980 census. See, e. g., In re 1980 Decennial Census Adjustment Litigation, 506 F. Supp. 648 (J. P. M. D. L. 1981); Carey v. Klutznick, 653 F. 2d 732 (CA2), cert. pending sub nom. Carey v. Baldrige, No. 81-752.

       Although § 9(a)(1) allows use of census data for “statistical” purposes, it remains subject to § 8(b), which prohibits public disclosure of information reported by or on behalf of individuals.

       The primary purpose of the FOIA was not to benefit private litigants or to serve as a substitute for civil discovery. See NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U. S. 132, 143, n. 10 (1975); Renegotiation Bd. v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 U. S. 1, 24 (1974).

       Most courts have concluded that an FOIA exemption does not automatically constitute a “privilege” within the meaning of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e. g., Frankel v. SEC, 460 F. 2d 813, 818 (CA2 1972) (information exempt under FOIA may be obtained through discovery if party’s need for information exceeds Government’s need for confidentiality). See Toran, Information Disclosure in Civil Actions: The Freedom of Information Act and the Federal Discovery Rules, 49 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 843, 848-854 (1981).

       Federal Rule of Evidence 501 provides that “[ejxcept as otherwise required by the Constitution of the United States or provided by Act of Congress ... the privilege of a witness . . . [or] government. . . shall be governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience.” (Emphasis added.)

       It is not unlikely that while cheeking the Bureau vacancy figures the city of Denver would speak to individuals who had supplied vacancy data to the Bureau. Even though the city might not be able to identify the individuals who originally gave the information, there would nonetheless be the appearance that confidentiality had been breached.
      Congress has several times rejected proposals designed to assure availability of census records to historians and other legitimate researchers. See, e. g., S. 3279, H. R. 10686, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. (1976). “Concerns about the legislation raised by the Bureau of the Census and others soon made it apparent that benefits gained from the release of census records could be easily offset by a loss of credibility for the census, as well as damage to the reputations of individual citizens.” Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, Laws on the Confidentiality of Census Records in Western Europe, Canada, and Japan, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. (Committee Print compiled by the Library of Congress 1976) (Foreword by Sen. McGee, Chairperson).


author: Justice Brennan Justice Powell,

text:
    HAVENS REALTY CORP. et al. v. COLEMAN et al.
    No. 80-988.
    Argued December 1, 1981
    Decided February 24, 1982

      Brennan, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Powell, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 382.

      Everette G. Allen, Jr., argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs was James F. Pascal.

      Vanessa Ruiz argued the cause for respondents. With her on the brief were Daniel M. Singer, James B. Blinkoff, and Josephine L. Ursini.

        William D. North and John R. Linton filed a brief for the National Association of Realtors as amicus curiae urging reversal.
      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by Reginald M. Barley for the City of Richmond; by F. Willis Caruso for the Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities; and by Martin E. Sloane for the National Committee Against Discrimination in Housing, Inc., et al.
      Briefs of amici curiae were filed by Solicitor General Lee, Assistant Attorney General Reynolds, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Harriet S. Shapiro, Jessica Dunsay Silver, Mildred M. Matesich, and Gershon M. Ratner for the United States; and by Richard C. Dinkelspiel, Norman J. Chachkin, Roderic V. 0. Boggs, Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III, Lowell Johnston, Judith Reed, and William L. Taylor for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law et al.

   Justice Brennan

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents questions concerning the scope of standing to sue under the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the proper construction of § 812(a) of the Act, which requires that a civil suit be brought within 180 days after the alleged occurrence of a discriminatory practice.

I

The case began as a class action against Havens Realty Corp. (Havens) and one of its employees, Rose Jones. Defendants were alleged to have engaged in “racial steering” violative of § 804 of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U. S. C. § 3604 (Act or Fair Housing Act). The complaint, seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in January 1979 by three individuals — Paul Coles, Sylvia Coleman, and R. Kent Willis — and an organization— Housing Opportunities Made Equal (HOME).

At the time suit was brought, defendant Havens owned and operated two apartment complexes, Camelot Townhouses and Colonial Court Apartments, in Henrico County, Va., a suburb of Richmond. The complaint identified Paul Coles as a black “renter plaintiff’ who, attempting to rent an apartment from Havens, inquired on July 13, 1978, about the availability of an apartment at the Camelot complex, and was falsely told that no apartments were available. App. 13, ¶ 7; id., at 15, ¶ 12. The other two individual plaintiffs, Coleman and Willis, were described in the complaint as “tester plaintiffs” who were employed by HOME to determine whether Havens practiced racial steering. Id., at 13, ¶7. Coleman, who is black, and Willis, who is white, each assertedly made inquiries of Havens on March 14, March 21, and March 23, 1978, regarding the availability of apartments. On each occasion, Coleman was told that no apartments were available; Willis was told that there were vacancies. On July 6, 1978, Coleman made a further inquiry and was told that there were no vacancies in the Camelot Townhouses; a white tester for HOME, who was not a party to the complaint, was given contrary information that same day. Id., at 16, ¶ 13.

The complaint identified HOME as “a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Virginia” whose purpose was “to make equal opportunity in housing a reality in the Richmond Metropolitan Area.” Id., at 13, ¶8. According to the complaint, HOME’S membership was “multiracial and includefd] approximately 600 individuals.” Ibid. Its activities included the operation of a housing counseling service, and the investigation and referral of complaints concerning housing discrimination. Id., at 14, 1ffl8a, 8b.

The three individual plaintiffs, who at the time the complaint was filed were all residents of the city of Richmond or the adjacent Henrico County, id., at 13, ¶7, averred that they had been injured by the discriminatory acts of petitioners. Coles, the black renter, claimed that he had been “denied the right to rent real property in Henrico County.” Id., at 17, ¶ 14. Further, he and the two tester plaintiffs alleged that Havens’ practices deprived them of the “important social, professional, business and economic, political and aesthetic benefits of interracial associations that arise from living in integrated communities free from discriminatory housing practices.” Id., at 17, ¶¶ 14, 15. And Coleman, the black tester, alleged that the misinformation given her by Havens concerning the availability of apartments in the Colonial Court and Camelot Townhouse complexes had caused her “specific injury.” Id., at 16, ¶ 13.

HOME also alleged injury. It asserted that the steering practices of Havens had frustrated the organization’s counseling and referral services, with a consequent drain on resources. Id., at 17, ¶ 16. Additionally, HOME asserted that its members had been deprived of the benefits of interracial association arising from living in an integrated community free of housing discrimination. Id., at 17-18, ¶ 16.

Before discovery was begun, and without any evidence being presented, the District Court, on motion of petitioners, dismissed the claims of Coleman, Willis, and HOME. The District Court held that these plaintiffs lacked standing and that their claims were barred by the Act’s 180-day statute of limitations, 42 U. S. C. § 3612(a). App. 33-35. Each of the dismissed plaintiffs — respondents in this Court — appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Coles v. Ha vens Realty Corp., 633 F. 2d 384 (1980). The Court of Appeals held that the allegations of injury by Willis and Coleman, both as testers and as individuals who were deprived of the benefits of residing in an integrated community, sufficed to withstand a motion to dismiss. With respect to HOME, the Court of Appeals held that the organization’s allegations of injury to itself and its members were sufficient, at the pleading stage, to afford the organization standing both in its own capacity and as a representative of its members. The Court of Appeals further held that none of the allegations of racial steering was time-barred, because petitioners’ conduct constituted a “continuing violation” lasting through July 13, 1978 — less than 180 days before the complaint was filed. We granted certiorari. 451 U. S. 905 (1981).

I

At the outset, we must consider whether the claims of Coleman, Willis, and HOME have become moot as a result of certain developments occurring after the District Court’s dismissal. The first was the District Court’s entry of a consent order with respect to Coles’ claims. Following the dismissal of respondents’ claims, Coles’ undismissed claims went to trial, and Havens was found to have engaged in unlawful racial steering. Shortly thereafter, at the request of the parties, the court entered a consent order granting Coles and the class he represented monetary and injunctive relief. App. to Brief for Respondents 10a. The second development con-ceras an agreement reached between petitioners and respondents prior to this Court’s grant of certiorari. The letter agreement, which expressly provides that it is to become effective only after approval by the District Court, states that if the Court were to deny certiorari, or grant it and affirm, respondents would each be entitled to $400 in damages and no further relief. The agreement provides also that if the Court were to grant certiorari and reverse, respondents would be entitled to no relief whatsoever.

Despite these two developments, this case is not moot. Irrespective of the issue of injunctive relief, respondents continue to seek damages to redress alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act. The letter agreement, if approved by the District Court, would merely liquidate those damages. If respondents have suffered an injury that is compensable in money damages of some undetermined amount, the fact that they have settled on a measure of damages does not make their claims moot. Given respondents’ continued active pursuit of monetary relief, this case remains “definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests.” Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227, 240-241 (1937) (citations omitted). See Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486, 495-500 (1969); Bond v. Floyd, 385 U. S. 116, 128, n. 4 (1966).

► — I HH HH

Our inquiry with respect to the standing issues raised in this case is guided by our decision in Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U. S. 91 (1979), There we considered whether six individuals and the village of Bellwood had standing to sue under §812 of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U. S. C. §3612, to redress injuries allegedly caused by the racial steering practices of two real estate brokerage firms. Based on the complaints, “as illuminated by subsequent discovery,” 441 U, S., at 95, we concluded that the village and four of the individual plaintiffs did have standing to sue under the Fair Housing Act, id., at 111, 115. In reaching that conclusion, we held that “Congress intended standing under §812 to extend to the full limits of Art. Ill” and that the courts accordingly lack the authority to create prudential barriers to standing in suits brought under that section. Id., at 103, n. 9, 109. Thus the sole requirement for standing to sue under § 812 is the Art. III minima of injury in fact: that the plaintiff allege that as a result of the defendant’s actions he has suffered “a distinct and palpable injury,” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 501 (1975). With this understanding, we proceed to determine whether each of the respondents in the present case has the requisite standing.

“(a) The rights granted by sections 803, 804, 805, and 806 may be enforced by civil actions in appropriate United States district courts without regard to the amount in controversy and in appropriate State or local courts of general jurisdiction.” 82 Stat. 88.

A

The Court of Appeals held that Coleman and Willis have standing to sue in two capacities: as “testers” and as individuals deprived of the benefits of interracial association. We first address the question of “tester” standing.

In the present context, “testers” are individuals who, without an intent to rent or purchase a home or apartment, pose as renters or purchasers for the purpose of collecting evidence of unlawful steering practices. Section 804(d) states that it is unlawful for an individual or firm covered by the Act “[t]o represent to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available,” 42 U. S. C. § 3604(d) (emphasis added), a prohibition made enforceable through the creation of an explicit cause of action in § 812(a) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 3612(a). Congress has thus conferred on all “persons” a legal right to truthful information about available housing.

This congressional intention cannot be overlooked in determining whether testers have standing to sue. As we have previously recognized, “[t]he actual or threatened injury required by Art. Ill may exist solely by virtue of ‘statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing . . . Warth v. Seldin, supra, at 500, quoting Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S. 614, 617, n. 3 (1973). Accord, Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 732 (1972); Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U. S. 205, 212 (1972) (White, J., concurring). Section 804(d), which, in terms, establishes an enforceable right to truthful information concerning the availability of housing, is such an enactment. A tester who has been the object of a misrepresentation made unlawful under § 804(d) has suffered injury in precisely the form the statute was intended to guard against, and therefore has standing to maintain a claim for damages under the Act’s provisions. That the tester may have approached the real estate agent fully expecting that he would receive false information, and without any intention of buying or renting a home, does not negate the simple fact of injury within the meaning of § 804(d). See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547, 558 (1967); Evers v. Dwyer, 358 U. S. 202, 204 (1958) (per curiam). Whereas Congress, in prohibiting discriminatory refusals to sell or rent in § 804(a) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 3604(a), required that there be a “bona fide offer” to rent or purchase, Congress plainly omitted any such requirement insofar as it banned discriminatory representations in § 804(d).

In the instant case, respondent Coleman — the black tester — alleged injury to her statutorily created right to truthful housing information. As part of the complaint, she averred that petitioners told her on four different occasions that apartments were not available in the Henrico County complexes while informing white testers that apartments were available. If the facts are as alleged, then respondent has suffered “specific injury” from the challenged acts of petitioners, see App. 16, ¶ 13, and the Art. Ill requirement of injury in fact is satisfied.

Respondent Willis’ situation is different. He made no allegation that petitioners misrepresented to him that apartments were unavailable in the two apartment complexes. To the contrary, Willis alleged that on each occasion that he inquired he was informed that apartments were available. As such, Willis has alleged no injury to his statutory right to accurate information concerning the availability of housing. We thus discern no support for the Court of Appeals’ holding that Willis has standing to sue in his capacity as a tester. More to the point, because Willis does not allege that he was a victim of a discriminatory misrepresentation, he has not pleaded a cause of action under § 804(d). We must therefore reverse the Court of Appeals’ judgment insofar as it reversed the District Court’s dismissal of Willis’ “tester” claims.

B

Coleman and Willis argue in this Court, and the Court of Appeals held, that irrespective of their status as testers, they should have been allowed to proceed beyond the pleading stage inasmuch as they have alleged that petitioners’ steering practices deprived them of the benefits that result from living in an integrated community. This concept of “neighborhood” standing differs from that of “tester” standing in that the injury asserted is an indirect one: an adverse impact on the neighborhood in which the plaintiff resides resulting from the steering of persons other than the plaintiff. By contrast, the injury underlying tester standing — the denial of the tester’s own statutory right to truthful housing information caused by misrepresentations to the tester — is a direct one. See Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, 438 U. S. 59, 80-81 (1978). The distinction is between “third-party” and “first-party” standing.

This distinction is, however, of little significance in deciding whether a plaintiff has standing to sue under § 812 of the Fair Housing Act. Bellwood, as we have already noted, held that the only requirement for standing to sue under § 812 is the Art. Ill requirement of injury in fact. As long as respondents have alleged distinct and palpable injuries that are “fairly traceable” to petitioners’ actions, the Art. Ill requirement of injury in fact is satisfied. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 261 (1977). The question before us, then, is whether injury in fact has been sufficiently alleged.

The two individual respondents, who according to the complaint were “residents of the City of Richmond or Henrico County,” alleged that the racial steering practices of petitioners have deprived them of “the right to the important social, professional, business and economic, political and aesthetic benefits of interracial associations that arise from living in integrated communities free from discriminatory housing practices.” App. 13, ¶ 7; id., at 17, ¶¶ 14, 15. The type of injury alleged thus clearly resembles that which we found palpable in Bellwood. In that case, plaintiffs alleged that the steering practices of the defendants, by transforming their neighborhood in Bellwood from an integrated into an almost entirely black environment, had deprived them of “the social and professional benefits of living in an integrated society” and had caused them “economic injury.” 441 U. S., at 111, 115, and n. 30.

Petitioners do not dispute that the loss of social, professional, and economic benefits resulting from steering practices constitutes palpable injury. Instead, they contend that Coleman and Willis, by pleading simply that they were residents of the Richmond metropolitan area, have failed to demonstrate how the asserted steering practices of petitioners in Henrico County may have affected the particular neighborhoods in which the individual respondents resided.

It is indeed implausible to argue that petitioners’ alleged acts of discrimination could have palpable effects throughout the entire Richmond metropolitan area. At the time relevant to this action the city of Richmond contained a population of nearly 220,000 persons, dispersed over 37 square miles. Henrico County occupied more than 232 square miles, in which roughly 170,000 people made their homes. Our cases have upheld standing based on the effects of discrimination only within a “relatively compact neighborhood,” Bellwood, 441 U. S., at 114. We have not suggested that discrimination within a single housing complex might give rise to “distinct and palpable injury,” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S., at 501, throughout a metropolitan area.

Nonetheless, in the absence of further factual development, we cannot say as a matter of law that no injury could be proved. Respondents have not identified the particular neighborhoods in which they lived, nor established the proximity of their homes to the site of petitioners’ alleged steering practices. Further pleading and proof might establish that they lived in areas where petitioners’ practices had an appreciable effect. Under the liberal federal pleading standards, we therefore agree with the Court of Appeals that dismissal on the pleadings is inappropriate at this stage of the litigation. At the same time, we note that the extreme generality of the complaint makes it impossible to say that respondents have made factual averments sufficient if true to demonstrate injury in fact. Accordingly, on remand, the District Court should afford the plaintiffs an opportunity to make more definite the allegations of the complaint. Cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(e). If after that opportunity the pleadings fail to make averments that meet the standing requirements established by the decisions of this Court, the claims should be dismissed.

C

HOME brought suit against petitioners both as a representative of its members and on its own behalf. In its representative capacity, HOME sought only injunctive relief. See App. 17, ¶ 16; id., at 18-20, ¶ 18. Under the terms of the letter settlement reached between petitioners and respondents, however, HOME has agreed to abandon its request for injunctive relief in the event the District Court ultimately approves the settlement. Supra, at 370-371, and n. 10. Additionally, in its brief in this Court, HOME suggests that we need not decide whether the organization has standing in its representative capacity. Brief for Respondents 8, n. 8; id., at 39, n. 35. In view of HOME’S apparent willingness to abandon this claim, we think it inappropriate that the Court use its resources to resolve an issue for which “such small embers of controversy . . . remain.” Taggart v. Weinacker’s, Inc., 397 U. S. 223, 225 (1970) (per curiam). While we therefore will not decide the question involving HOME’S representative standing, we do proceed to decide the question whether HOME has standing in its own right; the organization continues to press a right to claim damages in that latter capacity.

In determining whether HOME has standing under the Fair Housing Act, we conduct the same inquiry as in the case of an individual: Has the plaintiff “ ‘alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy’ as to warrant his invocation of federal-court jurisdiction”? Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U. S., at 261 (emphasis omitted), quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204 (1962). In the instant case, HOME’S complaint contained the following claims of injury to the organization:

“Plaintiff HOME has been frustrated by defendants’ racial steering practices in its efforts to assist equal access to housing through counseling and other referral services. Plaintiff HOME has had to devote significant resources to identify and counteract the defendant’s [sic] racially discriminatory steering practices.” App. 17, ¶ 16.

If, as broadly alleged, petitioners’ steering practices have perceptibly impaired HOME’S ability to provide counseling and referral services for low- and moderate-income home-seekers, there can be no question that the organization has suffered injury in fact. Such concrete and demonstrable injury to the organization’s activities — with the consequent drain on the organization’s resources — constitutes far more than simply a setback to the organization’s abstract social interests, see Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S., at 739. We therefore conclude, as did the Court of Appeals, that in view of HOME’S allegations of injury it was improper for the District Court to dismiss for lack of standing the claims of the organization in its own right.

IV

Petitioners argue that even if respondents do have standing to sue under the Fair Housing Act, their claims are time-barred under § 812(a) of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U. S. C. § 3612(a). That section requires that a civil suit be brought within 180 days after the alleged occurrence of a discriminatory housing practice. As petitioners note, although five different specific incidents allegedly in violation of the Fair Housing Act are detailed in the complaint, the four involving Coleman occurred more than 180 days before the complaint was filed, and the fifth, which was within 180 days of filing, involved only Coles, whose claims are already the subject of a consent order entered by the District Court. The Court of Appeals, adopting a “continuing violation” theory, held that because the Coles incident fell within the limitations period, none of the claims was barred.

We agree with the Court of Appeals that for purposes of § 812(a), a “continuing violation” of the Fair Housing Act should be treated differently from one discrete act of discrimination. Statutes of limitations such as that contained in § 812(a) are intended to keep stale claims out of the courts. See Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U. S. 304, 314 (1945). Where the challenged violation is a continuing one, the staleness concern disappears. Petitioners’ wooden application of § 812(a), which ignores the continuing nature of the alleged violation, only undermines the broad remedial intent of Congress embodied in the Act, see Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U. S. 409, 417 (1968). Cf. Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., post, at 398. Like the Com! of Appeals, we therefore conclude that where a plaintiff, pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, challenges not just one incident of conduct violative of the Act, but an unlawful practice that continues into the limitations period, the complaint is timely when it is filed within 180 days of the last asserted occurrence of that practice.

Applying this principle to the “neighborhood” claims of Coleman and Willis, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the 180-day statute of limitations is no bar. Willis and Coleman have alleged that petitioners’ continuing pattern, practice, and policy of unlawful racial steering has deprived them of the benefits of interracial association arising from living in an integrated neighborhood. Plainly the claims, as currently alleged, are based not solely on isolated incidents involving the two respondents, but a continuing violation manifested in a number of incidents — including at least one (involving Coles) that is asserted to have occurred within the 180-day period. HOME, too, claims injury to its counseling and referral services not only from the incidents involving Coleman and Willis, but also from a continuing policy and practice of unlawful racial steering that extends through the last alleged incident. We do not agree with the Court of Appeals, however, that insofar as respondent Coleman has standing to assert a claim as a “tester,” she may take advantage of the “continuing violation” theory. Her tester claim is, in essence, that on four isolated occasions she received false information from petitioners in violation of § 804(d). It is not alleged, nor could it be, that the incident of steering involving Coles on July 13,1978, deprived Coleman of her § 804(d) right to truthful housing information. See App. 16, ¶ 13.

V

In sum, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as the judgment reversed the District Court’s dismissal of the claims of Coleman and Willis as individuals allegedly deprived of the benefits of interracial association, and the claims of HOME as an organization allegedly injured by the racial steering practices of petitioners; we reverse the judgment insofar as it directed that Coleman and Willis may proceed to trial on their tester claims. Further proceedings on the remand directed by the Court of Appeals shall be consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Powell,

concurring.

In claiming standing based on a deprivation of the benefits of an integrated community, the individual respondents alleged generally that they lived in the city of Richmond or in Henrico County. This is an area of roughly 269 square miles, inhabited in 1978 by about 390,000 persons. Accordingly, as the Court holds, it is at best implausible that discrimination within two adjacent apartment complexes could give rise to “distinct and palpable injury,” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 501 (1975), throughout this vast area. See ante, at 377. This, to me, is the constitutional core of the Court’s decision. “Distinct and palpable” injury remains the minimal constitutional requirement for standing in a federal court.

Although I join the opinion of the Court, I write separately to emphasize my concern that the Art. Ill requirement of a genuine case or controversy not be deprived of all substance by meaningless pleading. Our prior cases have upheld standing, in cases of this kind, where the effects of discrimination were alleged to have occurred only within “a relatively compact neighborhood.” Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U. S., 91, 114 (1979). By implication we today reaffirm that limitation. See ante, at 377. I therefore am troubled, not by the opinion of the Court, but by the record on which that opinion is based. After nearly four years of litigation we know only what the individual respondents chose to plead in their complaint — that they live or lived within a territory of 269 square miles, within which petitioners allegedly committed discrete acts of housing discrimination. The allegation would have been equally informative if the area assigned had been the Commonwealth of Virginia.

In Warth, supra, at 501-502, we noted that a district court properly could deal with a vague averment as to standing by requiring amendment:

“[I]t is within the trial court’s power to allow or require the plaintiff to supply, by amendment to the complaint or by affidavits, further particularized allegations of fact deemed supportive of plaintiffs standing. If, after this opportunity, the plaintiffs standing does not adequately appear from all materials of record, the complaint must be dismissed.”

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also permit a defendant to move for a more definite statement of the claims against him:

“If a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, he may move for a more definite statement before interposing his responsive pleading. The motion shall point out the defects complained of and the details desired. If the motion is granted and the order of the court is not obeyed within 10-days after notice of the order or within such other time as the court may fix, the court may strike the pleading to which the motion was directed or make such order as it deems just.” Fed. Rule. Civ. Proc. 12(e).

See United States v. SCRAP, 412 U. S. 669, 689-690, n. 15 (1973) (Rule 12(e) motion would have been appropriate for defendants confronted with standing allegations “wholly barren of specifics”).

In this case neither the District Court nor apparently counsel for the parties took appropriate action to prevent the case from reaching an appellate court with only meaningless aver-ments concerning the disputed question of standing. One can well understand the impatience of the District Court that dismissed the complaint. Yet our cases have established the preconditions to dismissal because of excessive vagueness, e. g., Gladstone, Realtors, swpra, at 112-115, with regard to standing, and those conditions were not observed. The result is more than a little absurd: Both the Court of Appeals and this Court have been called upon to parse pleadings devoid of any hint of support or nonsupport for an allegation essential to jurisdiction.

Liberal pleading rules have both their merit and their price. This is a textbook case of a high price — in terms of a severe imposition on already overburdened federal courts as well as unjustified expense to the litigants. This also is a particularly disturbing example of lax pleading, for it threatens to trivialize what we repeatedly have recognized as a constitutional requirement of Art. Ill standing. See, e. g., Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 472-473, 475-476 (1982); Warth, supra, at 498.

In any event, in the context of this case, as it reaches us after some four years of confusing and profitless litigation, it is not within our province to order a dismissal. I therefore join the opinion of the Court.

       As defined in the complaint, “racial steering” is a “practice by which real estate brokers and agents preserve and encourage patterns of racial segregation in available housing by steering members of racial and ethnic groups to buildings occupied primarily by members of such racial and ethnic groups and away from buildings and neighborhoods inhabited primarily by members of other races or groups.” App. 11-12, ¶ 1.

       Section 804 provides:
      “As made applicable by section 803 and except as exempted by sections 803(b) and 807, it shall be unlawful—
      “(a) To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
      “(b) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
      “(c) To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.
      “(d) To represent to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available.
      “(e) For profit, to induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 82 Stat. 83, as amended, 88 Stat. 729.
      The complaint also alleged violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U. S. C. § 1982. Since the judgment of the Court of Appeals did not rest on a violation of § 1982, we have no occasion to consider the applicability of that statute.

       The individual plaintiffs averred that they were “members of a class composed of all persons who have rented or sought to rent residential property in Henrico County, Virginia, and who have been, or continue to be, adversely affected by the acts, policies and practices of’ Havens. App. 12, ¶2.

         According to the complaint,
      “Camelot Townhouses is an apartment complex predominantly occupied by whites. Coles was informed that no apartments were available in the Camelot complex. He was told that an apartment was available in the adjoining Colonial Court complex. The Colonial complex is integrated.” Id., at 15-16, ¶ 12.

       Coles’ claims, however, were not dismissed. Rather, they went to trial following the court’s certification of a class, represented by Coles, of individuals injured monetarily on or after January 9, 1977, by the steering practices of petitioners.

       The court noted that the District Court could require respondents to amend their pleadings to make more specific their allegations, and that if their allegations were “not supported by proof at trial, the case [could] be terminated for lack of standing at an appropriate stage of the trial.” 633 F. 2d, at 391.

       The court found that the practices violated both the Fair Housing Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U. S. C. § 1982. That determination is not before us, and we intimate no view as to its correctness. See Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U. S. 91, 115, n. 32 (1979).

       The parties filed the agreement with the Court following oral argument.

       The consent order involving Coles’ claims did establish a fund to provide damages for “claimants.” The parties agree, however, that respondents, whose claims were dismissed as time-barred and on standing grounds, cannot claim against the fund.

       It is true that with respect to the claims of HOME in its representative capacity, the complaint only requested injunctive relief, although of a broader nature than that provided in Coles’ consent order. Even as to HOME’S representative claims, however, the “stringent” test for mootness, United States v. Phosphate Export Assn., 393 U. S. 199, 203 (1968), is not satisfied, since the letter agreement, under which HOME agreed not to seek any further injunctive relief and which involves settlement of an uncertified class action, is still subject to the approval of the District Court. For reasons stated infra, at 378, we nevertheless do not reach the question whether HOME has standing in its representative capacity.

       Section 812 provides in relevant part:

       The Court did hold, however, that on the given record it was appropriate to grant summary judgment against the two remaining individual plaintiffs, neither of whom resided within the area alleged to have been adversely affected by the steering practices of the defendants. 441 U. S., at 112, n. 25. But the Court left the District Court free to permit these two individuals “to amend their complaints to include allegations of actual harm.” Id., at 113, n. 25.

       For the terms of § 804(a), see n. 2, supra.

       Congress’ decision to confer a broad right of truthful information concerning housing availability was undoubtedly influenced by congressional awareness that the intentional provision of misinformation offered a means of maintaining segregated housing. Various witnesses testifying before Congress recounted incidents in which black persons who sought housing were falsely informed that housing was not available. See Hearings on S. 1358, S. 2114, and S. 2280 before the Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 99 (1967) (testimony of Roy Wilkins); id., at 204, 206 (statement of Gerard A. Ferere); id., at 497 (statement of Whitney M. Young, Jr.).

       Indeed, respondent Willis made no argument in this Court in defense of this holding and appears to concede its error.

       “[A]s long as the plaintiff suffers actual injury as a result of the defendant’s conduct, he is permitted to prove that the rights of another were infringed. The central issue at this stage of the proceedings is not who possesses the legal rights protected by § 804, but whether respondents were genuinely injured by conduct that violates someone’s § 804 rights, and thus are entitled to seek redress of that harm under §812.” Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U. S., at 103, n. 9.

       Similarly, in Traficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U. S. 205 (1972), on which Bellwood relied, we held that two tenants — one black and one white — of an apartment complex had standing to sue under § 810(a) of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U. S. C. § 3610(a), in challenging the alleged racial steering practices of their landlord. The plaintiffs’ averments of injury, held sufficient for purposes of standing, were summarized by the Court in the following terms:
      “(1) they had lost the social benefits of living in an integrated community; (2) they had missed business and professional advantages which would have accrued if they had lived with members of minority groups; (3) they had suffered embarrassment and economic damage in social, business, and professional activities from being ‘stigmatized’ as residents of a ‘white ghetto.’” 409 U. S., at 208.

       According to the Court of Appeals, the population of the city of Richmond as of 1978 was 219,883, while that of Henrico County was 172,922. 633 F. 2d, at 391, n. 5.

       We have previously recognized that organizations are entitled to sue on their own behalf for injuries they have sustained. E. g., Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 511 (1975).

       That the alleged injury results from the organization’s noneconomic interest in encouraging open housing does not affect the nature of the injury suffered, Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 263 (1977), and accordingly does not deprive the organization of standing.

       Of course, HOME will have to demonstrate at trial that it has indeed suffered impairment in its role of facilitating open housing before it will be entitled to judicial relief.

       The section reads in pertinent part:
      “A civil action shall be commenced within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged discriminatory housing practice occurred.”

       Petitioners read § 813 of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 3613, as permitting only the Attorney General to bring a civil suit under the Act challenging a “pattern or practice” of unlawful conduct. We disagree. That section serves only to describe the suits that the Attorney General may bring, and not to limit suits that private parties may bring under § 812. See Fort v. White, 383 F. Supp. 949 (Conn. 1974).