524 U.S. 417 (1998) · 1998
Clinton v. City of New York
separation of powerspresidential powerCongressbudget lawconstitutional structureLandmark
Summary
Clinton v. City of New York held that the Line Item Veto Act violated the Presentment Clause. The President cannot cancel parts of a law after signing it without Congress passing new legislation through the Constitution’s required lawmaking process.
Background & Context
This case should be framed as a structural separation-of-powers ruling. It is not about whether line-item vetoes are good policy; it is about who has constitutional authority to change the text and legal effect of statutes.
The Question Before the Court
Does the Line Item Veto Act violate the Constitution by allowing the President to cancel selected provisions of statutes after signing a bill into law?
Petitioner
Clinton
Party asking the Court to review or reverse
Argued
- The Act gave the President lawful cancellation authority.
- The law improved fiscal accountability.
Respondent
City of New York
Party defending the judgment below
Argued
- The President was changing statutes after enactment.
- The Constitution requires bicameralism and presentment.
The Holding
The Line Item Veto Act violates the Presentment Clause because it allows the President to cancel parts of duly enacted statutes after signing them into law, effectively amending or repealing statutes without bicameralism and presentment.
The Court
How the justices lined up in this decision.
1-0
Vote
Joined decision
7 justicesAK
Anthony Kennedy
Majority
Justice Thomas
Majority
CT
Clarence Thomas
Majority
DS
David Souter
Majority
JP
John Stevens
Majority
RB
Ruth Ginsburg
Majority
WR
William Rehnquist
Majority
Concurred
1 justiceAS
Antonin part)
Concurred
Dissented
3 justicesAS
Antonin Scalia
Dissent
SD
Sandra O’Connor
Dissent
SB
Stephen Breyer
Dissent
What this means for you
The decision preserved Congress’s control over the text of statutes and blocked a major shift of legislative power to the President. It matters for budget fights because line-item vetoes can look efficient but also let a president reward allies, punish opponents, or reshape negotiated legislation after Congress votes. Any federal line-item veto would require a constitutionally valid structure, and likely a constitutional amendment if it gives the President cancellation power like the 1996 Act.
Key Takeaways
- The Court struck down the Line Item Veto Act.
- The President cannot amend or repeal parts of enacted statutes unilaterally.
- The ruling rests on bicameralism and presentment: Congress must pass and present statutory changes.
- The decision limited presidential power over spending and tax legislation.
- The case remains a major separation-of-powers limit on executive budget control.
Decision
1-0 majority opinion
- Citation
- 524 U.S. 417 (1998)
- Vote
- 1-0
- Decision type
- Majority opinion
- Argued
- April 27, 1998
- Decided
- June 25, 1998
- Term
- 1997
- Opinion author
- John Paul Stevens
Justice Stevens wrote the Court’s opinion, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg. Justice Kennedy concurred. Justice Scalia concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Justice O’Connor and joined in part by Justice Breyer. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices O’Connor and Scalia in part.