The U.S. Supreme Court case Raines v. Byrd (1996) revolved around the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act, which allowed the President to cancel specific spending items from appropriations bills and new direct spending and limited tax benefits. Six members of Congress who had voted against this act filed a lawsuit arguing that it violated their legislative power as defined by Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution. However, in a unanimous decision led by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Supreme Court ruled that these plaintiffs lacked legal standing because they failed to show any personal injury traceable to this act beyond an abstract dilution of institutional legislative power; thus dismissing their claims as non-justiciable.

In the dissenting opinion for Raines v. Byrd, Justice Stevens argued that the six members of Congress who brought the lawsuit had standing to sue because they were personally injured by the Line Item Veto Act. He contended that their votes on legislation were devalued and diluted by this act, which allowed the President to selectively veto parts of bills. This was a personal injury distinct from any institutional harm done to Congress as a whole. Furthermore, he disagreed with majority's reliance on historical precedent regarding legislative standing in cases like Coleman v Miller; instead arguing that modern circumstances necessitated an updated interpretation of these precedents. Finally, he expressed concern about separation-of-powers issues raised by denying legislators legal recourse when their voting power is allegedly diminished by executive action.