Doe v. Swearingen

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that members of House of Representatives did not have standing to sue President for 13 issuing an executive order on the basis that it had “denied them their proper role in the legislative process”
• suggesting that Raines may \require us to merge our separation of powers and standing analyses\
• noting that the plaintiffs had alleged that President Clinton had “usurp[ed] Congressional authority by implementing a program . . . in a manner contrary to the Constitution”
• \it was the President's veto-not a lack of legislative support-that prevented the bill from becoming a law\
• four House members lacked standing to challenge executive order signed by President
• “Raines notwithstanding, Moore . . . may remain good law, in part, but not in any way that is helpful to the plaintiff Representatives. Whatever Moore gives the Representatives under the rubric of standing, it takes away as a matter of equitable discretion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).