Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

12 

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA 
INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMM’N
 
Opinion of the Court 

tricting  Comm’n,  211  Ariz.  337,  351,  121  P. 3d  843,  857 
(App.  2005)  (per  curiam)  (“Once  the  Commission  certifies 
[its]  maps,  the  secretary  of  state  must  use  them  in  con­
ducting  the  next  election.”).    To  establish  standing,  the
Legislature need not violate the Arizona Constitution and
show that the Secretary of State would similarly disregard 
the State’s fundamental instrument of government. 

Raines  v.  Byrd,  521  U. S.  811  (1997),  does  not  aid 
AIRC’s  argument  that  there  is  no  standing  here.    In 
Raines,  this  Court  held  that  six  individual  Members  of 
Congress lacked standing to challenge the Line Item Veto 
Act.  Id.,  at  813–814,  829–830  (holding  specifically  and 
only  that  “individual  members  of  Congress  [lack]  Article 
III standing”).  The Act, which gave the President author-
ity  to  cancel  certain  spending  and  tax  benefit  measures
after  signing  them  into  law,  allegedly  diluted  the  efficacy
Id.,  at  815–817.    The 
of  the  Congressmembers’  votes. 
“institutional  injury”  at  issue,  we  reasoned,  scarcely  ze­
roed in on any individual Member.  Id., at 821.  “[W]idely
dispersed,”  the  alleged  injury  “necessarily  [impacted]  all 
Members  of  Congress  and  both  Houses  . . .  equally.”    Id., 
at  829,  821.  None  of  the  plaintiffs,  therefore,  could  tena­
bly claim a “personal stake” in the suit.  Id., at 830. 

In  concluding  that  the  individual  Members  lacked 
standing,  the  Court  “attach[ed]  some  importance  to  the
fact that [the Raines plaintiffs had] not been authorized to
represent  their  respective  Houses  of  Congress.”    Id.,  at 
829.  “[I]ndeed,” the Court observed, “both houses actively 
oppose[d]  their  suit.”  Ibid.  Having  failed  to  prevail  in 
their own Houses, the suitors could not repair to the Judi­
ciary to complain.  The Arizona Legislature, in contrast, is 
an institutional plaintiff asserting an institutional injury,
and  it  commenced  this  action  after  authorizing  votes  in
both  of  its  chambers,  App.  26–27,  46.    That  “different  . . . 
circumstanc[e],”  521  U. S.,  at  830,  was  not  sub  judice  in