Raines v. Byrd

1997-06-26

Headline: Court blocks lawmakers’ challenge to the line‑item veto, ruling individual members lack standing and leaving the law open to future challenges by those with concrete injuries.

Holding: The Court held that six individual members of Congress lack federal-court standing (the requirement of a concrete, personal injury), so their suit over the line-item veto was dismissed.

Real World Impact:

Individual members cannot sue based only on institutional dilution of their votes.
District Court ruling against the law was vacated and the case dismissed for lack of standing.
Those harmed by a presidential cancellation may later sue once they suffer concrete injury.

Topics: line-item veto, standing to sue, separation of powers, Congressional powers, judicial review

Summary

Background

Six individual Members of Congress (four Senators and two Representatives) sued the Treasury Secretary and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget after the President signed the Line Item Veto Act, which lets the President "cancel" certain spending or tax provisions after signing a bill. The District Court held the Members had standing and ruled the Act unconstitutional; the Government appealed directly to this Court.

Reasoning

The central question was whether these lawmakers had the kind of personal, concrete injury federal courts require to bring a case. The majority explained that Article III requires a particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the defendants and likely redressable by the court. The Court found the alleged institutional harm — a general dilution of legislative power shared by all Members — too abstract and widely dispersed to satisfy that requirement. The majority distinguished earlier cases that had allowed standing and emphasized historical practice and separation‑of‑powers concerns. It vacated the District Court judgment and dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

Real world impact

Because the Court dismissed the Members' suit, the Line Item Veto Act remains in effect unless changed by Congress or successfully challenged by someone who suffers a concrete, personal injury from a presidential cancellation. The opinion leaves open later suits by direct beneficiaries of a canceled provision and notes Congress can repeal or exempt bills from the Act.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Souter (joined by Justice Ginsburg) agreed in the judgment but stressed close questions about standing and separation‑of‑powers restraint. Justices Stevens and Breyer dissented, arguing Members do suffer a concrete injury to their voting rights and would have sustained the District Court's decision.