{ "id": "R44450", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R44450", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 455766, "date": "2016-09-12", "retrieved": "2016-11-28T21:36:42.222013", "title": "House of Representatives v. Burwell and Congressional Standing to Sue", "summary": "On November 21, 2014, the House of Representatives filed a lawsuit against the Departments of Health and Human Services and the Treasury, pursuant to H.Res. 676. House of Representatives v. Burwell included two claims regarding the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). In September 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion addressing the preliminary jurisdictional and justiciability questions at issue in the case. In May 2016, the district court issued its decision on the merits, in which the House prevailed as to one of its claims. The agencies filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in July 2016. \nThis report discusses one preliminary 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 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. In contrast, suits by congressional plaintiffs have been rare. While the courts have grappled with several cases regarding access to information, Burwell is the first case to analyze the House\u2019s standing to assert an institutional injury unrelated to information access. \nThis report begins by examining areas in which the courts have provided relatively definitive analysis regarding congressional standing. First, it examines Raines and its progeny, to explain how a court analyzes assertions of institutional injuries when the plaintiff is an individual Member. Next, the report discusses 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, one can identify whether the courts have established criteria that are necessary, but not sufficient, for institutional plaintiffs to establish standing. \nThe report then describes and analyzes the district court\u2019s ruling on standing in Burwell, in which the court determined that the House had suffered an injury sufficient to establish standing on one of its two claims. Finally, it addresses unresolved questions raised by the reasoning developed in Burwell and how it may be applied in future cases.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44450", "sha1": "ac3d6be9f33f5ccb5e05380c0cb34074d02bea6b", "filename": "files/20160912_R44450_ac3d6be9f33f5ccb5e05380c0cb34074d02bea6b.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44450", "sha1": "c881b41f049d5a50f621ef597a849d60bbbb4cb4", "filename": "files/20160912_R44450_c881b41f049d5a50f621ef597a849d60bbbb4cb4.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4756, "name": "Separation of Powers" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4910, "name": "Legislative Branch" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 451535, "date": "2016-04-11", "retrieved": "2016-04-12T15:42:29.902388", "title": "House of Representatives v. Burwell and Congressional Standing to Sue", "summary": "On November 21, 2014, the House of Representatives filed a lawsuit against the Departments of Health and Human Services and the Treasury, pursuant to H.Res. 676. House of Representatives v. Burwell included two claims regarding the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). In September 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion addressing the preliminary jurisdictional and justiciability questions at issue in the case. \nThis report discusses one such preliminary 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 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. In contrast, suits by congressional plaintiffs have been rare. While the courts have grappled with several cases regarding access to information, Burwell is the first case to analyze the House\u2019s standing to assert an institutional injury unrelated to information access. \nThis report begins by examining areas in which the courts have provided relatively definitive analysis regarding congressional standing. First, it examines Raines and its progeny, to explain how a court analyzes assertions of institutional injuries when the plaintiff is an individual Member. Next, the report discusses 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, one can identify whether the courts have established criteria that are necessary, but not sufficient, for institutional plaintiffs to establish standing. \nThe report then describes and analyzes the district court\u2019s ruling on standing in Burwell, in which the court determined that the House had suffered an injury sufficient to establish standing on one of its two claims. Finally, it addresses unresolved questions raised by the reasoning developed in Burwell and how it may be applied in future cases.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44450", "sha1": "f17f59f806579df5d9aba2c11aa9a8ecd0e27568", "filename": "files/20160411_R44450_f17f59f806579df5d9aba2c11aa9a8ecd0e27568.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44450", "sha1": "b2bbaa96df1adbdf6d8dde06ddfa0fa55988231a", "filename": "files/20160411_R44450_b2bbaa96df1adbdf6d8dde06ddfa0fa55988231a.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [] }