Kucinich v. Obama
2011 WL 5005303
D.D.C.2011Background
- On March 19, 2011, President Obama ordered U.S. forces to attack the armed Libyan government without congressional approval.
- NATO officially assumed command of the military operations in Libya on March 31, 2011, though Obama and the Defense Secretary retained ultimate command authority.
- Libya did not attack the U.S. or NATO, and the administration described the actions as time-limited, scope-limited, not a war.
- Defense funding for Libya came largely from general funds and Overseas Contingency Operations, with substantial expenditures within days of action, allegedly without explicit congressional authorization.
- Plaintiffs—ten House members—seek declaratory and injunctive relief suspending operations absent a congressional war declaration, alongside challenges to NATO expansion and funding practices.
- The court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding plaintiffs lack Article III standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs have Article III standing to sue. | Kucinich asserts legislative standing; claims injury to their war-initiation role. | Obama/Defendants contend lack of personal injury; injury is institutional. | Plaintiffs lack standing; case dismissed. |
| Whether taxpayers have standing to challenge executive war actions. | Taxpayers argue Flast exception applies via congressional spending nexus. | Defendants argue no express congressional spending nexus for discretionary executive actions. | Taxpayer standing fails; no Flast nexus; case dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) (standing requires personal injury; institutional injury not enough)
- Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (narrow Coleman exception to Raines does not apply here)
- Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) (vote nullification via Coleman requires unique deprivation of a legislative remedy)
- Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968) (establishment-clause taxpayer standing; two-part nexus test)
- Navy Chaplaincy v. U.S. Navy, 534 F.3d 756 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Flast is narrow; does not extend to discretionary executive spending)
- Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589 (1988) (taxpayer standing possible where funding is Congress-initiated disbursement)
- American Jewish Congress v. CNCS, 399 F.3d 351 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (taxpayer standing in challenging how funds are administered under a congressional program)
- Arizona Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 131 S. Ct. 1436 (2011) (confirming Flast-level analysis; cautioning against broad taxpayer standing)