The House filed the authorized lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), as discussed in detail below, on November 21, 2014. This report discusses one justiciability question raised in the House's lawsuit: whether or not an authorized house of Congress has standing to sue the executive branch regarding the manner in which it executes the law. The suit may seek relief regarding
the failure of the President, the head of any department or agency, or any other officer or employee of the executive branch, to act in a manner consistent with that official's duties under the Constitution and laws of the United States with respect to implementation of any provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, title I or subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, including any amendment made by such provision, or any other related provision of law, including a failure to implement any such provision. H.Res. House of Representatives v. Burwell Claims

The House filed its suit in November 2014, entitled U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell . To satisfy the constitutional standing requirements in Article III, the Supreme Court imposes three required elements. Congressional Standing

As applied to congressional plaintiffs, the doctrine of standing has generally been invoked only in cases challenging executive branch actions or acts of Congress and has focused on the injury prong of standing. The case law with respect to congressional plaintiffs 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. Following the Supreme Court's 1997 decision in Raines v. Byrd , the case law regarding category one, individual Member suits, has been fairly settled. Burwell is the first suit to examine congressional institutional plaintiff standing based on an injury unrelated to information access. Congressional Institutions as Plaintiffs

Before Burwell , congressional institutions had been successful at establishing standing in a handful of cases regarding access to information. Congressional Authorization Is Required to Establish Standing

Two recent cases illustrate how courts have analyzed institutional plaintiffs' standing to sue to enforce a subpoena, even after Raines . Finally, the House argued against the notion that the existence of other legislative remedies should affect the outcome of the court's standing analysis, reiterating its conclusion that the House had suffered an institutional injury sufficient to establish standing. First, the plaintiff in this suit is an institution, and not an individual Member. Unresolved Questions

While the district court's opinion does not have any binding precedential value, it is the first opinion to directly address the question of whether a congressional institutional plaintiff has standing to bring a claim alleging an institutional injury unrelated to information access. Following the court's ruling granting standing to the House on one of its claims, the agencies filed a motion seeking interlocutory appeal of the court's order. The district court denied the motion. The court issued its opinion on the merits in May 2016, in which the House prevailed on its cost sharing subsidy claim. The agencies filed a notice of appeal to the D.C. Circuit in July 2016, appealing both the standing and merits decisions.
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.
This 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.
As 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's 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's standing to assert an institutional injury unrelated to information access.
This 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.
The report then describes and analyzes the district court's 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.