"III. CONCLUSION The parties have presented significant statutory and constitutional issues that, on the surface, appear in need of judicial resolution. However, the judiciary must refrain from "deal[ing] with [] difficult and sensitive issue[s] of constitutional adjudication on the complaint of one who does not allege 'a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.'" Schlesinger, 418 U.S. at 224 (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962)).
Here, the Comptroller General has suffered no personal injury as a private citizen, and any institutional injury exists only in his capacity as an agent of Congress – an entity that itself has issued no subpoena to obtain the information and given no expression of support for the pursuit of this action.
The absence of congressional endorsement for the investigatory and enforcement efforts of its agent – especially where this lawsuit has profound implications for Congress's own investigatory and enforcement powers – leaves to "the realm of speculation whether there is a real need to exercise the power of judicial review," id. at 221, and deprives this action of the "'concrete adverseness . . . upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions,'" id. at 224 (quoting Baker, 369 U.S. at 204)).
The historical record, moreover, does not suggest that plaintiff's "attempt to litigate this dispute at this time and in this form" is consistent with historical experience. See Raines, 521 U.S. at 829."