Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp

PETITIONER: Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc.
RESPONDENT: William B. Camp
LOCATION: Symphony Cinema, Boston, Massachusetts

DOCKET NO.: 85
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1969-1970)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

CITATION: 397 US 150 (1970)
ARGUED: Nov 18, 1969
DECIDED: Mar 03, 1970

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - November 18, 1969 in Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp

Warren E. Burger:

Number 85, Association of Data Processing Service Organizations against Camp.

Mr. Gross, you may proceed whenever you’re ready.

Bert M. Gross:

Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.

In the present case, this Court is called upon to resolve a direct conflict between the Courts of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the First Circuit regarding a threshold question of standing to sue.

Now, this case arose in the District Court for the District of Minnesota and it was dismissed upon motion and before trial on the grounds that the petitioners lack standing to maintain this litigation.

This ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and about the same time, a substantially identical case arose in Rhode Island and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reached a precisely opposite result that petitioners in that case do have standing to maintain this particular type of litigation.

This case arose from the Eighth Circuit.

The First Circuit case is presently pending on petition for certiorari.

The facts in this case are limited to the complaint because the case was dismissed on motion prior to trial or pretrial.

The petitioners were the plaintiffs and they are the Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, which is a trade association of businesses engaged in rendering data processing services to the general business community.

The other petitioner is Data Systems Incorporated, a Minnesota corporation, a member of the association, which is referred to as ADAPSO and Data Systems is engaged in rendering data processing services in the Minnesota.

Respondents are the American National Bank and Trust Company of St. Paul, a National Bank and the Comptroller of the Currency.

The facts alleged that Data System was engaged in the data processing business in Minnesota and that the American National Bank was similarly engaged in the data processing business.

And as a matter of fact, the Data Systems had agreed to perform certain services for particular customer, it later turned out that the customer began doing business with the American National Bank.

There is no question about that.

The complaint alleged that the action of the American National Bank in performing data processing services was unlawful and that it violated the powers given National Banks under the National Banking Laws.

The complaint asked for declaratory relief that the bank’s action was unlawful.

It asked for injunctive relief and it asked for damages.

The complaint also asked for declaratory relief that the Comptroller of the Currency was acting unlawfully when he authorized National Banks to engage in the general data processing business.

The Comptroller’s authorization is found on page 2 of petitioner’s brief and it’s in a paragraph of the Comptroller’s Manual for National Banks, which states as follows.

“Incidental to its banking services, a national bank may make available its data processing equipment or perform data processing services on such equipment for other banks and bank customers.

The last three words that if the banks assume authority to do this fatal activity.

Now, in our brief --

Byron R. White:

They might have had it without that regulation.

Bert M. Gross:

If they have --

Byron R. White:

Let’s assume that it just started out doing it.

Bert M. Gross:

If they have authority under the acts of Congress Your Honor, they would not need the specific authorization.

Byron R. White:

So the question is the statutes?

Bert M. Gross:

That’s correct, the question is statutory authority.

In our brief, we raise the general question of standing to sue.