vendors have standing to assert concomitant rights of other parties, such as Craig. The Court acknowledged that parties economically affected by regulations may challenge them "by acting as advocates of the rights of third parties who seek access to their market or function." Concurring opinion Justice Blackmun wrote a concurring opinion, agreeing that a higher standard of scrutiny was appropriate. Dissenting opinions Chief Justice Burger and Justice Rehnquist dissented. Rehnquist dissented because he felt that the law needed to pass only "rational basis," as previous cases in the area, such as Stanton v. Stanton, had used only the "rational basis" test. Burger was "in general agreement with Mr. Justice Rehnquist's dissent" but penned a separate dissent to emphasize that "a litigant may only assert his own constitutional rights or immunities." He felt that the indirect economic injury to Whitener and other vendors introduced "a new concept of constitutional standing to which I cannot subscribe." See also Frontiero v. Richardson Gender equality List of gender equality lawsuits List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 429 Sources References External links 1976 in United States case law Alcohol law in the United States Gender discrimination lawsuits History of civil rights in the United States Legal history of Oklahoma United States men's rights case law Ruth Bader Ginsburg United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule a prior Supreme Court decision United States equal protection case law United States Twenty-first Amendment case law United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court 1976 in Oklahoma Legal drinking age