Standing - zone of interest

Individual members of Congress brought action challenging constitutionality of Line Item Veto Act. Under Article I Congress can pass bills, under Article II the President can veto the bills. Congress passed a bill that gives President a Line Item Veto. Four Senators and two Representatives that had voted against the bill, brought this action to show the unconstitutionality of the line item veto.

The District Court for the District of Columbia, 956 F.Supp. 25, entered judgment declaring Act unconstitutional. Appeal was taken.

Whether a line item veto is unconstitutional. Whether the Congressmen had standing on this issue.

No standing because there has been no institutional injury.

The Supreme Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist, held that individual members of Congress did not have sufficient "personal stake" in dispute, and did not allege sufficiently concrete injury, to establish Article III standing to maintain suit. The Congressmen had no standing. Vacated and remanded.

The Congress people have not suffered a particularized and concrete injury. They are not ones to bring this case.

Dissent opinions: arguments as to why Congress has standing

• There is institutional injury: takes power out of Congress,
• against what framers originally said since they clearly divided the powers
• In Coleman they had standing; an act was passed although not everyone voted for it; in that case there was institutional injury
• If the procedure were valid, it would deny every Senator and every Representative any opportunity to vote for or against the truncated measure
• Because the opportunity to cast such votes is a right guaranteed by the text of the Constitution, I think it clear that the persons who are deprived of that right by the Act have standing to challenge its constitutionality.