{
  "id": "R43712",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R43712",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 434081,
      "date": "2014-09-04",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-06T20:07:33.807129",
      "title": "Article III Standing and Congressional Suits Against the Executive Branch",
      "summary": "On July 30, 2014, the House of Representatives passed H.Res. 676, authorizing the Speaker of the House to initiate a civil action against the President and/or executive branch officials or employees for their failure to act consistently with their duties under the Constitution or federal law in implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Speaker John Boehner has argued that such a suit is necessary to compel the President to follow his oath of office and comply with his constitutional responsibility to \u201ctake Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.\u201d The Speaker has announced that the suit will focus on the Obama Administration\u2019s decision to delay implementation of the ACA\u2019s employer responsibility requirements or employer mandate.\nIf the Speaker were to file a suit pursuant to H.Res. 676, the executive branch defendants are likely to raise questions about the justiciability of such a claim. This report will discuss one such justiciability question: whether or not an authorized house of Congress has standing to sue the executive branch regarding the manner in which it executes the law. Generally, to participate as party litigants, all plaintiffs, including congressional plaintiffs, must demonstrate that they meet the requirements of the standing doctrine, derived from Article III of the Constitution. The failure to satisfy the standing requirements is fatal to the litigation and will result in its dismissal without a decision by the court on the merits of the presented claims.\nAs applied to congressional plaintiffs, the doctrine of standing has generally been invoked only in cases challenging executive branch actions or acts of Congress. This case law can be broken down into two categories: (1) cases where individual Members file suit and (2) cases where congressional institutions (committees or houses of Congress) file suit. The case law regarding individual Member suits has been fairly settled following the Supreme Court\u2019s 1997 Raines v. Byrd decision. On the other hand, suits by congressional plaintiffs have been rare and federal courts have not determined whether a congressional institutional plaintiff would have standing to sue based on the type of injury likely to be asserted in a suit brought pursuant to H.Res. 676. \nThis report will begin by examining areas in which the courts have provided relatively definitive analysis regarding congressional standing. First, it will examine Raines and its progeny, to explain how a court analyzes assertions of institutional injuries when the plaintiff is an individual Member. Next, the report will discuss cases brought by institutional plaintiffs based on institutional injuries regarding information access, namely suits seeking to enforce a congressional subpoena. By looking at these cases, we can identify whether the courts have established criteria that are necessary, but not sufficient, for institutional plaintiffs to establish standing. Finally, the report will address questions that remain unresolved by the courts that may be relevant in determining whether the House has standing in a suit filed pursuant to H.Res. 676.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43712",
          "sha1": "0fbbf50731704a008e4d9451aaf3d6686d8c18fa",
          "filename": "files/20140904_R43712_0fbbf50731704a008e4d9451aaf3d6686d8c18fa.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43712",
          "sha1": "8f59b71657bdda2bddccc043cdc3758f811e6f0c",
          "filename": "files/20140904_R43712_8f59b71657bdda2bddccc043cdc3758f811e6f0c.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}