| Raines v. Byrd | |
|---|---|
| |
| Argued May 27, 1997 Decided June 26, 1997 | |
| Full case name | Raines v. Byrd |
| Citations | 521 U.S. 811 (more) 117 S. Ct. 2312; 138 L. Ed. 2d 849 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Byrd v. Raines, 956 F. Supp. 25 (D.D.C. 1997) |
| Subsequent | Clinton v. City of New York |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg |
| Concurrence | Souter, joined by Ginsburg |
| Dissent | Stevens |
| Dissent | Breyer |
Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held individual members of Congress do not automatically have standing to litigate the constitutionality of laws affecting Congress as a whole.[1]
The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 allowed the president to nullify certain provisions of appropriations bills, and disallowed the use of funds from canceled provisions for offsetting deficit spending in other areas.
At its passage, the Act was politically controversial, with many Democrats breaking with Clinton to oppose it. Of the opposition, six members of Congress, including Republican Mark Hatfield, sued to prevent use of the line-item veto. U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson found the Act unconstitutional.[2]
The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, as they had not suffered any particularized injury. The courts reasoning held that individual members of Congress were subject to strict limits on their ability to sue, particularly in a dispute between different branches of government.[1]
After taking effect, the Act was in 1998 found unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York.
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
