One of the primary roles of agencies in the modern administrative state is the promulgation of rules and regulations governing primary conduct. Separation of powers and non-delegation concerns have evolved into very weak limits on the scope of agency lawmaking authority. Once the executive branch agencies have acted, Article III courts routinely step in to review the consistency of these regulations with congressional mandates. Particularly in the case of controversial regulations, the lawmaking process is not complete until judicial review. Entities burdened by such regulations--so called “regulatory objects”-- enjoy presumed standing to challenge the scope of agency regulations. Groups of individuals benefited by such regulations enjoy no such presumption of “standing,” rather, their right to challenge regulation depends on their ability to establish specific “injury in fact,” and the “redressibility” of that injury through judicial decree.
Karl S. Coplan, Petition Clause Interests and Standing for Judicial Review of Administrative Lawmaking, Admin. & Reg. L. News, Spring 2009, at 3, http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/644/