Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Raines v. Byrd

Supreme Court of the United States · 1997 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawArticle III standinglegislative standingseparation of powersArticle IIIstandinglegislative standingpersonal stake

Facts

Six Members of Congress who had voted against the Line Item Veto Act sued after the Act became effective. The Act authorized the President, after signing a bill into law, to cancel certain spending items and limited tax benefits and provided expedited procedures for congressional disapproval bills. The Act also stated that any Member of Congress or any individual adversely affected could bring a constitutional challenge in the District Court for the District of Columbia. The Members alleged that the Act injured them in their official capacities by altering the effect of their votes, divesting them of a role in repeal, and changing the balance of power between Congress and the President.

Issue

Whether individual Members of Congress who voted against the Line Item Veto Act had Article III standing to challenge the Act before the President had exercised the cancellation authority, based on alleged dilution of their institutional legislative power.

Rule

Article III standing requires a plaintiff to allege a personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief. For legislators, an abstract and widely dispersed institutional injury to legislative power is insufficient; standing may exist, at most, where legislators' votes would have been sufficient to defeat or enact specific legislative action and those votes were completely nullified.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress enacts the Executive Budget Revision Act, which authorizes the President to cancel specified transportation grants after signing an appropriations bill. Six members of Congress from Ohio and Colorado who voted against the Act sue in federal court before the President has used the cancellation authority, alleging that the law generally shifts legislative power to the Executive and changes the practical significance of their future votes.

Do the legislators have Article III standing?

Explanation. Article III requires a personal injury fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and likely to be redressed. Individual legislators lack standing when they assert only an institutional diminution of legislative power shared by all members. Their votes were counted and they simply lost; that is not the kind of personal, concrete injury required.