Raines v. Byrd
| 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][2]
Background of the case
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]- ^ a b Shultz, David (January 1, 2005). The Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court. Infobase Publishing. pp. 259–. ISBN 9780816067398. Retrieved March 15, 2013.
- ^ "Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997)". Justia Law. Retrieved November 1, 2024.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Blank, Adam L. (1998). "Raines v. Byrd: A Death Knell for the Congressional Suit?". Mercer Law Review. 49.
- ^ Pear, Robert (June 26, 1998). "Justices, 6–3, Bar Veto of Line Items in Bills". The New York Times. p. 1.
- ^ Felsenthal, Edward (June 26, 1998). "Supreme Court Invalidates Line-Item Veto in 6–3 Vote". The Wall Street Journal.
- ^ Dewar, Helen; Biskupic, Joan (June 26, 1998). "Washingtonpost.com: Court Strikes Down Line-Item Veto". Washington Post. p. A1.
- ^ "Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)". Justia Law. Retrieved November 2, 2024.
External links
[edit]- Text of Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) is available from: Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)