Clinton v. City of New York facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Clinton v. City of New York |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued April 27, 1998 Decided June 25, 1998 |
|
| Full case name | William J. Clinton, President of the United States, et al. v. City of New York, et al. |
| Citations | 524 U.S. 417 (more)
118 S. Ct. 2091; 141 L. Ed. 2d 393; 1998 U.S. LEXIS 4215; 66 U.S.L.W. 4543; 98-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 50,504; 81 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2416; 98 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4905; 98 Daily Journal DAR 6893; 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 3191; 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 735
|
| Prior history | Judgment for plaintiffs, 985 F. Supp. 168 (D.D.C. 1998) |
| Holding | |
| The Line Item Veto Act is unconstitutional because the Constitution of the United States of America does not authorize the President of the United States of America to amend federal legislation that has passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate in Congress. Line-item vetoes are unlawful. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stevens, joined by Rehnquist, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg |
| Concurrence | Kennedy |
| Concur/dissent | Scalia, joined by O'Connor; Breyer (Part III) |
| Dissent | Breyer, joined by O'Connor, Scalia (Part III) |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. art. I; 2 U.S.C. § 691 et seq. (1994 ed., Supp. II) (Line Item Veto Act of 1996) | |
Clinton v. City of New York was a very important legal case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1998. The Court ruled that a law called the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was against the U.S. Constitution. This law had given the President of the United States the power to cancel specific parts of spending bills. The Supreme Court said this power went against the "Presentment Clause" of the Constitution. This clause explains how bills become laws. The Court decided that the President cannot change or remove parts of laws that Congress has already passed.
Contents
What Was the Line Item Veto Act?
The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was a law that gave the President a special power. It allowed the President to "cancel" or get rid of certain parts of bills that dealt with government spending. This meant the President could remove specific items from a large spending bill. If a part was canceled, the money for that part could not be used.
Why Was This Law Created?
The idea for the Line Item Veto Act came from a big change in American politics. In the 1994 elections, the Republican Party gained control of both parts of Congress. This was called the "Republican Revolution." They had a plan called the "Contract with America." One of their goals was to control government spending. The Line Item Veto Act was one way they hoped to do this. Interestingly, President Bill Clinton, who was a Democrat, supported this specific part of their plan.
Why Did People Challenge the Law?
When the Line Item Veto Act was passed, many people disagreed with it. Some members of Congress even sued to stop it from being used. However, the Supreme Court said these members of Congress could not sue yet. This was because they had not shown that the law had directly harmed them. This first case was called Raines v. Byrd in 1997.
Soon after, President Clinton started using the line-item veto. He canceled parts of two different laws. This led to new lawsuits. The City of New York and some health care groups sued. They were affected when President Clinton canceled parts of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. This cancellation meant they lost some financial benefits. Also, a company called Snake River Potato Growers, Inc. sued. They were affected when the President canceled parts of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. This cancellation meant they lost some tax benefits.
These lawsuits were combined into one case. A lower court decided that the Line Item Veto Act was unconstitutional. Because the Act had a special rule for quick appeals, the case went straight to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court's Decision
The Supreme Court heard the case and made its decision. In a 6-to-3 vote, the Court ruled that the Line Item Veto Act was unconstitutional. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the main opinion for the Court.
The Court said that the Constitution has a very specific way for bills to become laws. This is called the Presentment Clause. A bill must be passed by both the House and the Senate. Then, the President must either sign the whole bill into law or reject the whole bill (veto it). The Court explained that the Constitution does not allow the President to change or remove just parts of a law. Giving the President this power would be like letting him create new laws, which is Congress's job.
Justice Kennedy's View
Justice Anthony Kennedy agreed with the Court's decision. He wrote a separate opinion to explain his thoughts. He worried that the Line Item Veto Act gave the President too much power. He felt it could allow the President to "reward one group and punish another." This could upset the balance of power between the different parts of the government.
Justice Breyer's Disagreement
Justice Stephen Breyer disagreed with the Court's decision. He wrote a separate opinion explaining why. He believed the Act was a good way to help the government work better. He argued that the Act did not break any specific rules in the Constitution. He also said that Congress has often given the President power to make decisions about how laws are carried out. He thought the line-item veto was similar to these other powers.
Justice Scalia's Mixed Opinion
Justice Antonin Scalia had a mixed opinion. He agreed with some parts of the Court's decision and disagreed with others. He felt that one of the groups suing (the potato growers) did not have a strong enough reason to sue. However, he did think the other groups (New York City and health care organizations) had a good reason. He believed that Congress could give the President the power to decide not to spend certain money. He saw this as similar to canceling a line item.
What Happened After the Decision?
Even though the Supreme Court struck down the Line Item Veto Act in 1998, the idea didn't completely disappear. Years later, President George W. Bush asked Congress to create a new law. He wanted a different version of the line-item veto power.
In 2006, President Bush sent a proposal to Congress. This new idea was called the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006. It was different from the old law. Under this new proposal, the President could point out "wasteful" spending. He could then ask Congress to vote on whether to cancel that specific spending item. Congress would have to vote quickly, usually within ten days. A simple majority vote would be enough to cancel the item. Also, senators could not use a filibuster to block the vote.
The main difference was that the President would not have the final say. Congress would still have to agree to cancel the spending. This was meant to avoid the problems the Supreme Court found with the first Act.
However, this new proposal also faced opposition. Senator Robert Byrd called it "an offensive slap at Congress." He worried it would give the President too much power over individual members of Congress. He also felt it would take away Congress's important "power of the purse" (control over government money).
Experts like Professor Viet D. Dinh and Nathan Sales argued that the new proposal was constitutional. They said it respected the rules for how laws are made. The House Budget Committee approved the bill, and then the full House of Representatives approved it in June 2006. But a similar bill in the Senate did not pass. So, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act never became law.
