In the case of Eileen Vey v. William J. Clinton, President of the United States et al., 1996, plaintiff Eileen Vey filed a lawsuit against then-President Bill Clinton and other government officials alleging that they had violated her constitutional rights by implementing and enforcing the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The act prohibited any unauthorized individual from knowingly possessing a firearm in a place that person knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a school zone. Vey argued this law was unconstitutional as it infringed upon her Second Amendment right to bear arms. The U.S District Court for Western Pennsylvania dismissed her complaint on grounds that she lacked standing because she did not demonstrate an actual injury or threat of immediate harm resulting from enforcement of this act against her personally. On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed dismissal due to lack of standing but also noted even if she had standing, there would be no merit in challenging constitutionality since Supreme Court precedent allows restrictions on firearms near schools.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Eileen Vey v. William J. Clinton, President of the United States, et al., argued that the court should not have dismissed Vey's claim as frivolous or malicious without first allowing her an opportunity to amend her complaint. The dissent maintained that while Vey's original allegations were indeed vague and conclusory, they could potentially be remedied through amendment. It was also pointed out that a dismissal for failure to state a claim is typically reserved for cases where it is clear beyond doubt that no set of facts could support plaintiff’s claims under any viable legal theory - a standard which had arguably not been met in this instance.