Clinton v. City of New York

Background

Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act in 1996, effective January 1, 1997. The President used that law on August 11, 1997, to cancel (make without legal force) one Medicaid-related spending provision affecting New York and one tax provision aimed at farmers’ cooperatives. Two groups sued: New York City and health-care providers challenging the Medicaid cancellation, and Snake River Potato Growers cooperative and an officer challenging the canceled tax benefit. The District Court held the Act unconstitutional and the cases reached the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The main question was whether the President may, under a statute, unilaterally prevent parts of duly enacted laws from taking effect. The Court held that the Act’s cancellation procedure functionally repealed or amended enacted statutes because cancellations prevent provisions “from having legal force or effect.” That action bypasses the Constitution’s Presentment Clause, which requires bills approved by both Houses to be presented to the President as a whole and either signed or returned. The Court rejected arguments that historical delegations or the Act’s “lockbox” budget features made cancellations constitutional.

Real world impact

Because the Court found that plaintiffs had standing and that the Act violates the Presentment Clause, the President may not unilaterally cancel enacted spending items or limited tax benefits under this statute. The decision restores Congress’s exclusive procedure for changing enacted law and immediately affects the specific cancellations at issue and similar future attempts to repeal parts of laws by executive fiat.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Breyer dissented, arguing the Act was constitutional and comparable to longstanding delegations; Justice Scalia and Justice Kennedy wrote separate opinions emphasizing other separation-of-powers concerns. These views explain the institutional debate but do not change the Court’s ruling.