Lexplug logoLexplug

Kucinich v. Obama

District Court, District of Columbia
821 F. Supp. 2d 110, 2011 WL 5005303, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121349 (2011)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Individual members of Congress lack Article III standing to sue the Executive Branch for alleged war powers violations unless their legislative votes have been completely nullified, meaning they possess no legislative remedy. Furthermore, taxpayers lack standing to challenge discretionary executive military spending unless the challenge is based on the Establishment Clause.


Facts:

  • On March 19, 2011, President Barack Obama ordered U.S. military forces to attack armed government forces in Libya.
  • President Obama did not seek or receive Congressional approval before initiating the attack.
  • The President reported to Congress on March 21, 2011, claiming authority to act under his constitutional powers as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.
  • While NATO assumed command on March 31, 2011, U.S. troops remained involved under the ultimate command of the President.
  • The Obama Administration stated that the War Powers Resolution did not apply because the involvement was limited in nature.
  • The Administration funded the operation using approximately $750 million in reallocated general funds and 'Overseas Contingency Operations' funds rather than seeking specific war funding from Congress.
  • The House of Representatives held votes regarding the conflict, including passing a resolution against deploying ground troops, but rejected proposals to defund the operation or direct immediate withdrawal.

Procedural Posture:

  • Ten members of the House of Representatives filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
  • The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the Libya operations were unconstitutional and an injunction to suspend operations.
  • The defendants (the President and Administration officials) filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do ten members of the House of Representatives have standing to sue the President for initiating military hostilities in Libya without congressional authorization, based on theories of legislative injury or taxpayer misuse of funds?


Opinions:

Majority - Judge Walton

No, the plaintiffs lack standing because they allege an institutional injury rather than a personal one, and they retain legislative remedies to address the dispute. The Court held that under the Supreme Court's precedent in Raines v. Byrd, legislators cannot sue based on a loss of political power that affects all members of Congress equally. This is an 'institutional injury' rather than a 'personal' deprivation like losing one's seat. Regarding the plaintiffs' claim that their votes were 'nullified' (relying on Coleman v. Miller), the Court explained that nullification only creates standing when legislators have no legislative remedy left. Here, the plaintiffs had ample remedies: they could (and did) vote on bills to defund the operation or forbid the use of forces. The fact that the plaintiffs lost those votes does not mean their votes were nullified; it means they were outvoted. Finally, the Court rejected taxpayer standing. Under Flast v. Cohen, taxpayer standing is extremely narrow and generally limited to Establishment Clause challenges against Congressional spending. The plaintiffs challenged discretionary Executive spending, not a specific Congressional appropriation, and the Court declined to extend taxpayer standing to War Powers disputes.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the high barrier for 'legislative standing,' effectively closing the federal courts to members of Congress seeking to enforce the War Powers Resolution against the President. By adhering strictly to Raines v. Byrd, the Court emphasized that disputes over war powers are political battles that must be resolved through the legislative process (funding cuts, legislation, impeachment) rather than judicial intervention. The ruling clarifies that 'vote nullification' is a narrow exception applicable only when a legislator's vote is literally not counted or stripped of legal effect, not merely when the President acts contrary to the legislator's preferences. It also prevents the expansion of taxpayer standing into foreign policy disputes, maintaining the separation of powers.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Kucinich v. Obama (2011)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"