Citation network
Raines Vs. Byrd
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 26, 1997
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 811 (1997) October Term, 1996 Syllabus Raines, Director, Office of Management and Budget, Et Al. V. ByrdSearch
-
appellees must allege a personal injury that is particularized, concrete, and otherwise judicially cognizable. Lujan v. DefendersSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Allen v. WrightSearch
-
has never had occasion to rule on the legislative standing question presented here. Appellees are not helped by Powell v. McCormackSearch
-
elected them. pp.820-821. (c) Appellees' claim also does not fall within the Court's holding in Coleman v. MillerSearch
-
could have challenged the Federal Election Campaign Act's appointment provisions which were struck down in Buckley v. ValeoSearch
-
irrational, our Constitution's regime contemplates a more restrictive role for Article III courts. See United States v. RichardsonSearch
-
Id., at 30 (citing, e. g., Michel v. AndersonSearch
-
Valley Forge Christian College v. AmericansSearch
-
United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464 , 471 (1982). As we said in Simon v. EasternSearch
-
requirement is that appellees, based on their complaint, must establish that they have standing to sue. Lujan v. DefendersSearch
-
Bender v. WilliamsportSearch
-
courts may exercise power only 'in the last resort, and as a necessity''') (quoting Chicago & Grand Trunk R. Co. v. WellmanSearch
-
Muskrat v. UnitedSearch
-
III We have never had occasion to rule on the question of legislative standing presented here.4 In Powell v. McCormackSearch
-
by statutorily granting the right to sue to a plaintiff who would not otherwise have standing. Gladstone, Realtors v. VillageSearch
-
the risk of unwanted conflict with the Legislative Branch when that plaintiff brings suit. See, e. g., Bennett v. SpearSearch
-
may have standing when (as here) they assert injury to their institutional power as legislators. See, e. g., Kennedy v. SampsonSearch
-
Moore v. UnitedSearch
-
Barnes v. KlineSearch
-
id., at 41 (Bork, J., dissenting). But see Holtzman v. SchlesingerSearch
-
Harrington v. SchlesingerSearch
-
we have upheld standing for legislators (albeit state legislators) claiming an institutional injury is Coleman v. MillerSearch
-
or does not go into effect), on the ground that their votes have been completely nullified.6 6 See also Bender v. WilliamsportSearch
-
at the direction of the President, removed him. Myers sued in the Court of Claims to recover lost salary. In Myers v. UnitedSearch
-
the law preventing the removal of a Presidential appointee without the consent of Congress. Similarly, in INS v. ChadhaSearch
-
sued to challenge the appointment provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act which were struck down in Buckley v. ValeoSearch
-
restricted role for Article III courts, well expressed by Justice Powell in his concurring opinion in United States v. RichardsonSearch
-
in Marbury v. MadisonSearch
-
exercise of legislative power but the actions of their own colleagues in Congress in passing the Act. Cf. Holtzman v. SchlesingerSearch
-
ante, at 821. And yet the significance of this distinction is not so straightforward. In Braxton County Court v. WestSearch
-
id., at 198 (quoting Smith v. IndianaSearch
-
accord, Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrathSearch
-
to a challenge by a group of state legislators in Coleman v. MillerSearch
-
or one House thereof, to seek the aid of the Federal Judiciary. See Brieffor Appellants 26, n. 14 (citing McGrain v. DaughertySearch
-
to official authority may support standing for a government itself or its duly authorized agents, see, e. g., Diamond v. CharlesSearch
-
ICC v. Oregon-WashingtonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial