Raines v. Byrd
{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
|Litigants=Raines v. Byrd
|ArgueDate=May 27
|ArgueYear=1997
|DecideDate=June 26
|DecideYear=1997
|FullName=Raines v. Byrd
|USVol=521
|USPage=811
|ParallelCitations=117 S. Ct. 2312; 138 L. Ed. 2d 849
|Prior=Byrd v. Raines, 956 F. Supp. [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/956/25/1895189/ 25] (D.D.C. 1997)
|Subsequent=Clinton v. City of New York
|Holding=
|Majority=Rehnquist
|JoinMajority=O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg
|Concurrence=Souter
|JoinConcurrence=Ginsburg
|Concurrence2=
|JoinConcurrence2=
|Concurrence/Dissent=
|JoinConcurrence/Dissent=
|Dissent=Stevens
|JoinDissent=
|Dissent2=Breyer
|JoinDissent2=
|LawsApplied=
}}
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.{{cite book|last=Shultz|first=David|title=The Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=I_f6Oo9H3YsC&pg=PA259|accessdate=15 March 2013|date=2005-01-01|publisher=Infobase Publishing|isbn=9780816067398|pages=259–}}{{Cite web |title=Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/811/ |access-date=2024-11-01 |website=Justia Law |language=en}}
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.{{cite book|last=McMurtry|first=Virginia A.|title=Item Veto and Expanded Impoundment Proposals: History and Current Status|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QGMB3HTIF5cC&pg=PA10|accessdate=15 March 2013|date=November 2010|publisher=DIANE Publishing|isbn=9781437936247|pages=10–}}
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.{{Cite journal |last=Blank |first=Adam L. |date=1998 |title=Raines v. Byrd: A Death Knell for the Congressional Suit? |url=https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1859&context=jour_mlr |journal=Mercer Law Review |volume=49}}
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.{{Cite news |last=Pear |first=Robert |date=June 26, 1998 |title=Justices, 6–3, Bar Veto of Line Items in Bills |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/26/us/supreme-court-opinion-justices-6-3-bar-veto-line-items-bills-see-hiv-disability.html |access-date= |work=The New York Times |page=1}}{{Cite news |last=Felsenthal |first=Edward |date=June 26, 1998 |title=Supreme Court Invalidates Line-Item Veto in 6–3 Vote |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB898785077763645500 |access-date= |work=The Wall Street Journal}}{{Cite news |last1=Dewar |first1=Helen |author-link1=Helen Dewar |last2=Biskupic |first2=Joan |author-link2=Joan Biskupic |date=June 26, 1998 |title=Washingtonpost.com: Court Strikes Down Line-Item Veto |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/wp062698.htm |access-date= |newspaper=Washington Post |page=A1}}{{Cite web |title=Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/524/417/ |access-date=2024-11-02 |website=Justia Law |language=en}}
References
{{reflist}}
External links
- {{caselaw source
| case = Raines v. Byrd, {{Ussc|521|811|1997|el=no}}
| googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3363577568877703610
| justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/811/
| loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep521/usrep521811/usrep521811.pdf
| oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1996/96-1671
}}
{{USArticleIII}}
Category:1997 in United States case law
Category:United States Constitution Article Three case law
Category:United States Supreme Court cases
Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court