holding that individual members of Congress did "not have a sufficient personal stake" in a challenge to the Line Item Veto Act because their claim of a "diminution of legislative power . . . necessarily damages all Members of Congress and both Houses of Congress equally"

Summary of this case from Garcia v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union

holding that an injury is “concrete,” if it is not “too abstract” and is “capable of resolution through the judicial process”

Summary of this case from Wallace v. State

holding that members of Congress did not have standing to challenge the Line Item Veto Act passed by Congress that gave the President power to cancel items in any bill

Summary of this case from Cutler v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.

holding that members of Congress lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act

Summary of this case from Ariz. State Legislature v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm'n

holding that individual members of Congress lacked standing to bring constitutional challenge to the Line Item Veto Act

Summary of this case from In re Hotze

holding that individual Members of Congress lacked standing to challenge the Line Item Veto Act

Summary of this case from Disability Rights Pa. v. Boockvar

holding that individual Members of Congress lacked standing to challenge the Line Item Veto Act

Summary of this case from Disability Rights Pa. v. Boockvar

holding that individual members of Congress lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act because they had failed to allege a "sufficient personal stake" in the dispute or a "sufficiently concrete injury" resulting from adoption of the statute

Summary of this case from American Civil Liberties Union v. Darnell

holding that standing is an "overriding and time-honored concern about keeping the Judiciary's power within its proper constitutional sphere" that required the Court to "put aside the natural urge to proceed directly to the merits of this important dispute and to 'settle' it for the sake of convenience and efficiency"

Summary of this case from Neeley v. West Orange-Cove

holding that members of Congress lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act

Summary of this case from Brady v. Dean

holding that congressmen had no standing in mandamus to challenge a statute granting the president a line item veto on appropriations bills.

Summary of this case from State ex Rel. Missouri v. State Tax Comm

holding that a statute cannot eliminate "standing requirements by statutorily granting the right to sue to a plaintiff who would not otherwise have standing"

Summary of this case from Lockerbie Glove Co. Town Home Owner's Ass'n v. Indianapolis Historic Pres. Comm'n

holding that a statute cannot eliminate "standing requirements by statutorily granting the right to sue to a plaintiff who would not otherwise have standing"

Summary of this case from Serbon v. City of East Chicago

concluding that members of Congress who had voted against the Line Item Veto Act did not have standing to challenge the legislation because they lacked "concrete injury" as their asserted harm was "a type of institutional injury (the diminution of legislative power)," which damaged all congressional members equally, was "wholly abstract and widely dispersed," and not personal to them as individuals

Summary of this case from Patterson v. United States Senate

denying standing to congressional members who "alleged no injury to themselves as individuals," and who sustained, at most, "a loss of political power, not loss of any private right"

Summary of this case from Pirtle v. Legislative Council Comm. of N.M. Legislature

denying standing to congressmen alleging only wholly abstract and widely dispersed institutional injury from dilution of legislative power where none were authorized to represent their respective houses and where both houses opposed the suit

Summary of this case from Gregory v. Shurtleff

vacating decision by district court that denied a motion to dismiss and ordering court to dismiss the complaint for failing to allege a cognizable injury under the standing doctrine

Summary of this case from Schmier v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

rejecting standing for members of Congress based on the loss of political power

Summary of this case from Howell v. McAuliffe

rejecting legislators' injury as "institutional injury" that was "abstract and widely dispersed," although noting that Act expressly authorized "'[a]ny Member of Congress or any individual adversely affected' by the Act to bring an action for declaratory judgment or injunctive relief on the ground that any provision of the Act is unconstitutional."

Summary of this case from Neeley v. West Orange-Cove

recognizing officials would have standing to claim "depriv[ation] of something to which they personally are entitled—such as their seats as Members of Congress after their constituents had elected them "

Summary of this case from Baca v. Colo. Dep't of State

recognizing that standing is jurisdictional because without standing, there is no "case-or-controversy"

Summary of this case from Maddonna v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.

recognizing that standing is jurisdictional because without standing, there is no "case-or-controversy"

Summary of this case from Rogers v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.

Raines v. Byrd

Summary

Opinion

Raines v. Byrd

Raines v. Byrd

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

Raines v. Byrd

Summary

Opinion

Raines v. Byrd

Raines v. Byrd

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citations

Citing Cases

Citations