Law Commons^™

Standing For Congressional Parties: Matching Injuries With Institutions, Branden Lewiston

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Honoring Dan Meltzer—Congressional Standing And The Institutional Framework Of Article Iii: A Comparative Perspective, Vickie C. Jackson

Notre Dame Law Review

In this short Essay, I focus on only one aspect of the broader question of government standing to sue: congressional standing. For one thing, separation of powers problems are more acutely presented in federal level disputes.

Given an increased interest by parts of the Congress, especially the House of Representatives, in seeking to intervene in ongoing litigation, there are pressing new issues in the lower federal courts: U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer recently upheld congressional standing to challenge an asserted violation of the Appropriations Clause in connection with spending under the Affordable Care Act, while rejecting the House’s standing …

A Functional Theory Of Congressional Standing, Jonathan Remy Nash

Michigan Law Review

The Supreme Court has offered scarce and inconsistent guidance on congressional standing—that is, when houses of Congress or members of Congress have Article III standing. The Court’s most recent foray into congressional standing has prompted lower courts to infuse analysis with separation-ofpowers concerns in order to erect a high standard for congressional standing. It has also invited the Department of Justice to argue that Congress lacks standing to enforce subpoenas against executive branch actors. Injury to congressional litigants should be defined by reference to Congress’s constitutional functions. Those functions include gathering relevant information, casting votes, and (even when no vote …

Litigating Presidential Signing Statements, Michele E. Gilman

All Faculty Scholarship

In response to President George W. Bush's aggressive use of presidential signing statements, several members of Congress as well as a prominent Taskforce of the American Bar Association have proposed legislation to provide for judicial review of signing statements. These critics assert that the President must veto legislation with which he disagrees, rather than use signing statements to refuse to enforce statutes that he signs into law. This article explores whether Congress can litigate presidential signing statements, concluding that they are not justiciable even if Congress enacts a law granting itself standing to raise such a challenge. Congress might be …

Congressional Standing To Sue: Whose Vote Is This, Anyway?, R. Lawrence Dessem

Faculty Publications

The article is divided into three major sections. Section I traces the development of a separate doctrine of “congressional standing.” It examines the doctrine's development from the Supreme Court's initial consideration of legislative standing through the current opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Section II then analyzes three possible theories of congressional injury and standing. Derivative, representative, and third-party standing theories are all rejected as a basis for congressional standing. While rejecting the suggestion that congressmen possess a personal interest in “their” votes sufficient to constitute the “distinct and palpable injury” required …