Clinton v. City of New York
Clinton v. City of New York is a significant Supreme Court case that addressed the constitutionality of the Line-Item Veto Act of 1996. This legislation allowed the President to selectively veto specific provisions of spending bills, aiming to reduce federal expenditures. The case arose when President Bill Clinton exercised this veto power, leading to adverse effects on New York City and other parties, who subsequently challenged the law's validity. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against the Act, declaring that the Constitution does not grant the President the authority to alter legislation in such a manner. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, emphasized that presidents must either approve or reject entire bills, a process rooted in the Constitution's requirements. The dissenting opinions argued that the line-item veto did not breach constitutional principles or the separation of powers. This case remains a pivotal point in discussions of executive power and legislative authority in the United States.
Clinton v. City of New York
Date: June 25, 1998
Citation: 117 S.Ct. 2312
Issues: Presidential powers; separation of powers
Significance: The Supreme Court ruled the line-item veto was unconstitutional because it allowed the president to amend legislation passed by Congress.
The Line-Item Veto Act of 1996 authorized the president to veto fiscal portions of a bill, with the goal of putting a limit on federal spending. In Raines v. Byrd (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that members of Congress had no standing to oppose the law in court. After President Bill Clinton vetoed several spending measures, however, the city of New York and other plaintiffs were adversely affected by the vetoes and were granted standing.
By a 6-3 vote, the Court struck down the veto law. In his opinion for the Court, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the Constitution did not authorize the president to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes. Beginning with George Washington, presidents had recognized that the Constitution required them to “approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto.” To make such a change in the legislative process would require a constitutional amendment. The three dissenters believed that the line-item veto violated neither a textual constitutional command nor any implicit principle of the separation of powers doctrine.