• Attorneys



• Cases and Documents



• Alan Morrison Supreme Court Assistance Project



• Consumer Justice Project



• Public Interest FOIA Clinic



• Freedom of Information Clearinghouse



• Internet Free Speech



• Fellowship and Employment Opportunities



• FAQs



• Litigation Group
  E-Update

***Search other cases***

Byrd, et al. v. Raines, et al.

Close Date:	06/26/1997
Topic(s):	Protecting Constitutional Rights and Requirements
Status:	closed
Citation:	521 U.S. 811 (1997)
Date Of Involvement:	01/02/1997
Docket:	96-1671

Related Documents:
Supreme Court Reply Brief for Appellees (05/21/1997) Opening Supreme Court Brief for Appellees (05/09/1997) Memorandum and Order (U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson) (04/10/1997) Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Alternate Motion for Summary Judgement (03/07/1997) Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (01/27/1997) Complaint for Declatory Relief (01/02/1997)
Description:
Question Presented: Did the congressmen have Article III standing to challenge the Line Item Veto Act as a violation of the Presentment Clause in Article I? Alan Morrison of Public Citizen represented the appellee members of Congress. The Supreme Court held that the members of Congress lacked standing to challenge the Line Item Veto.

Because Public Citizen does not accept funds from corporations, professional associations or government agencies, we can remain independent and follow the truth wherever it may lead. But that means we depend on the generosity of concerned citizens like you for the resources to fight on behalf of the public interest. If you would like to help us in our fight, click here.