Which of the following statements is true regarding Congress's standing to challenge a law that authorizes the president to exercise a line-item veto?

In evaluating Congress's standing to challenge a law authorizing a line-item veto, it's important to recognize the principle of "concrete injury." To establish standing in federal court, a party must show that they have suffered a specific, actionable injury. Simply being a member of Congress or opposing a legislative measure does not automatically confer standing.

In this context, a law granting the president a line-item veto alters the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. However, members of Congress would likely not have standing unless they can demonstrate a particularized injury that directly affects their ability to carry out their legislative responsibilities. If their only grievance is a philosophical or procedural disagreement, without specific harm, they would lack the concrete injury necessary for standing.

This is why the assertion regarding a lack of concrete injury is accurate: because without demonstrating how their capacity to perform their duties is impaired in a tangible way, members of Congress would not meet the legal requirement for standing to challenge the law.