Legal Definitions - Clinton v. City of New York (1998)

Clinton v. City of New York (1998) is a landmark Supreme Court case that declared the Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional. This Act had granted the President the power to selectively cancel individual spending items or specific tax benefits within a larger bill, rather than having to approve or reject the entire legislative package. The Supreme Court ruled that this power violated the Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The Presentment Clause dictates a precise process: a bill must be passed by both houses of Congress in its complete and identical form and then presented to the President. The President must then either sign the entire bill into law or veto the entire bill. By allowing the President to strike out specific provisions, the Line Item Veto Act effectively gave the President the power to amend legislation, which is a power exclusively reserved for Congress. The Court determined that this amounted to an unconstitutional shift of legislative authority from Congress to the executive branch, thereby disrupting the fundamental principle of separation of powers.

Here are some examples illustrating the implications of Clinton v. City of New York:

• Altering a Comprehensive Budget Bill: Imagine Congress passes a vast annual budget bill that includes funding for various government agencies, specific infrastructure projects, and several tax credits aimed at different industries. If the Line Item Veto Act were still in effect, the President could have approved the funding for most agencies and infrastructure but unilaterally canceled a particular tax credit for renewable energy or a specific agricultural subsidy. The ruling in Clinton v. City of New York prevents this, ensuring the President must either accept the entire budget bill as passed by Congress or veto it entirely, forcing a renegotiation with Congress if specific provisions are unacceptable.

• Changing an Omnibus Spending Package: Suppose Congress passes an "omnibus" spending bill that combines funding for military operations, disaster relief, and educational programs into one large package. Prior to Clinton v. City of New York, a President might have been able to approve the military and disaster relief funding but eliminate the educational programs funding, effectively creating a new version of the bill. The Supreme Court's decision means the President cannot cherry-pick; they must approve or reject the entire package as a whole, preserving Congress's intent for the combined legislation.

• Maintaining Legislative Integrity in Policy Bills: Consider a complex healthcare reform bill passed by Congress that includes provisions for expanding coverage, regulating insurance companies, and funding public health initiatives. Each part might be intricately linked to others, representing a compromise among various legislative factions. Without the Clinton v. City of New York ruling, a President could have used a line-item veto to remove, for example, the insurance regulation provisions while keeping the coverage expansion and public health funding. This would have fundamentally altered the policy balance and intent of the original legislation, effectively allowing the President to legislate rather than simply execute the law as passed.