Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Supreme Court· 6/26/1997

Raines v. Byrd

Citations

  • 521 U.S. 811
  • 117 S. Ct. 2312
  • 138 L. Ed. 2d 849
  • 1997 U.S. LEXIS 4040

About this case

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1997 United States Supreme Court case

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] [2]

Background of the case

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raines_v._Byrd&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background of the case")
]

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.[3]

Opinion of the Court

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raines_v._Byrd&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Opinion of the Court")
]

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, as they had not suffered any particularized injury. The court 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] [4]

Subsequent events

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raines_v._Byrd&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Subsequent events")
]

After taking effect, the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was found unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York _ by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1998.[5] _[6] [7] [8]

References

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raines_v._Byrd&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: References")
]

  1. Jump up to: 1 2 Shultz, David (January 1, 2005). The Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court . Infobase Publishing. pp. 259–. ISBN  9780816067398 . Retrieved March 15, 2013.
  2. ↑ "Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997)" . Justia Law. Retrieved November 1, 2024.
  3. ↑ McMurtry, Virginia A. (November 2010). Item Veto and Expanded Impoundment Proposals: History and Current Status . DIANE Publishing. pp. 10–. ISBN  9781437936247 . Retrieved March 15, 2013.
  4. ↑ Blank, Adam L. (1998). "Raines v. Byrd: A Death Knell for the Congressional Suit?" . Mercer Law Review. 49.
  5. ↑ Pear, Robert (June 26, 1998). "Justices, 6–3, Bar Veto of Line Items in Bills" . _The New York Times _. p. 1.
  6. ↑ Felsenthal, Edward (June 26, 1998). "Supreme Court Invalidates Line-Item Veto in 6–3 Vote" . _The Wall Street Journal _.
  7. ↑ Dewar, Helen ; Biskupic, Joan (June 26, 1998). "Washingtonpost.com: Court Strikes Down Line-Item Veto" . _Washington Post _. p. A1.
  8. ↑ "Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)" . Justia Law. Retrieved November 2, 2024.

External links

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raines_v._Byrd&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: External links")
]

U.S. Supreme Court Article III case law

Federalism

Justiciability

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raines_v._Byrd&oldid=1351966375 "

Categories :

Hidden categories:

Search

Search

Raines v. Byrd

Add languages Add topic

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that individual members of Congress lacked standing to bring constitutional challenge to the Line Item Veto Act
  • holding that individual members of Congress lack standing to sue to protect the interests of Congress
  • recognizing that in order to meet Article III’s standing requirements a plaintiff must allege a personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct
  • holding that individual Members of Congress lacked standing to challenge the Line Item Veto Act
  • holding that the party bringing the claim “must establish that they have standing to sue”
  • holding that plaintiffs did not have standing when they “simply lost” a vote, rather than having their vote denied or nullified

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Breyer, Kennedy, O'Con-Nor, Rehnquist, Souter, Stevens, Thomas

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

856 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

44 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Raines v. Byrd

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.