The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Tuesday, May 27, 1997
Decision: Thursday, June 26, 1997
Issues: Judicial Power, Standing to Sue, Personal Injury

Advocates

Walter E. Dellinger, III (Argued the cause for the appellants)
Alan B. Morrison (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

Several individual members of the 104th Congress, who voted against the passage of the Line Item Veto Act (Act) giving the President authority to veto individual tax and spending measures after having signed them into law, sued to challenge the Act's constitutionality. After granting them standing, the District Court ruled in the congressmen's favor as it found the Act unconstitutional. Direct appeal was granted to the Supreme Court.

Question

Did the congressmen have Article III standing to challenge the Line Item Veto Act as a violation of the Presentment Clause in Article I?

Conclusion

No. In a 7-to-2 decision, which avoided the question of the Act's constitutionality, the Court held that the individual congressmen lacked proper Article III standing to maintain their suit. The Court explained that the congressmen failed to show how the allegedly unconstitutional Act resulted in their personal injury, since it applied to the entire institution of Congress. Moreover, the congressmen based their claim on a loss of political power rather then a demonstration of how the Act violated one of their particularized legally protected interests. The Court concluded that, having failed to meet both of these standing requirements, the congressmen did not present the Court with a case-or-controversy over which it had jurisdiction.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Decision: 7 votes for Raines, 2 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement
Wrote a dissent
Stevens
Wrote a dissent
Breyer
Voted with the majority, joined Souter's concurrence
Ginsburg
Wrote a special concurrence
Souter
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Wrote the majority opinion
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Full Opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_96_1671/>
(last visited ).