Raines v. Byrd
Significance, Political Ironies, Not A "case" Or "controversy", Counter-arguments In The Constitution And Coleman
Frederick D. Raines, Director, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, et al.
Senator Robert Byrd, et al.
That appellees lacked standing to challenge the recently passed Line Item Veto Act.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Walter E. Dellinger, U.S. Solicitor General
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Justices for the Court
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas
Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens
Date of Decision
26 June 1997
That the appellees lacked standing for their case under Article III, section II, of the Constitution, which authorizes the judicial branch to review only "cases" and "controversies." Since appellees could not "allege a personal injury that is particularized, concrete, and otherwise judicially cognizable," the case had to be vacated.
- The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929).
- Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939).
- Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969).
- Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984).
- Clinton v. City of New York, 188 S.Ct. 2091 (1998).
- Ray Lewis Trial: 2000 - Victims Stabbed During Brawl, The Case Against Ray Lewis, Prosecution's Murder Case Collapses
- Rae Carruth Trial: 2000-01 - A Promising Football Career Shattered, Cherica Adams Dies And Rae Carruth Flees, Recording Of 911 Call Is Played In Opening Statements
- Raines v. Byrd - Further Readings
- Raines v. Byrd - Significance
- Raines v. Byrd - Political Ironies
- Raines v. Byrd - Not A "case" Or "controversy"
- Raines v. Byrd - Counter-arguments In The Constitution And Coleman
- Raines v. Byrd - Impact
- Other Free Encyclopedias