Members of Congress have sued presidents before, but this appears to be the first time an entire chamber has officially voted to do so. Previous suits have been singularly unsuccessful, largely because of the legal principle of "standing" — that is, the requirement that the plaintiff in a suit demonstrate that he or she has specifically been harmed by the defendant's action. It would be interesting to hear House Republicans explain how they have been harmed by the president's refusal to enforce a provision they almost universally detest. The only hope that the courts will even begin to hear the merits of this case rely on untested and novel legal theories to overcome the judiciary's long-established aversion to getting involved in political disputes between the other two branches of government. Under those circumstances, and given the likelihood that any final resolution would have to be made by the Supreme Court, there is little chance that the House could get its way before the delay for the provision in question expires, or possibly even before the next president is sworn in.