Claiming that President
Obama at times has pushed the limits of his authority, including on the issue that is the subject of the proposed lawsuit: his unilateral decision to postpone, twice, the Affordable Care Act's requirement that larger employers provide coverage for their workers. This page was troubled by that decision, though we acknowledged that unreasoning Republican resistance made it impossible for Obama to gain congressional cooperation in improving the law.
But even if one believes Obama overstepped his authority, a lawsuit by the House is a legal long shot. As Walter Dellinger, a former acting solicitor general in the Clinton administration, told the House Rules Committee last week, citizens can seek redress in the courts for "personal, particularized" and "concrete" injuries they've suffered as a result of government action. But the courts do not exist for the purpose of "intruding into disputes between the elected branches of government" on how laws should be interpreted or implemented.
The courts haven't completely barred
If Congress is aggrieved by what it sees as overreaching by the president, it has other options spelled out by Justice Antonin Scalia in his dissenting opinion in the DOMA case, including the elimination of funding.
That explanation only underlines the political nature of the proposed action. Its slim prospects of success aside , this nuisance suit vindicates the House Republicans' reputation for hyperbole and hyperpartisanship. It's a losing proposition in more ways than one.