Professional Documents
Culture Documents
"
"
Andrew Hill
Brief
1. Case Name. Clinton v. City of New York 524 U.S. 393-450 (1998)
2. Year Case Decided by Supreme Court. 1998
3. Facts that Triggered the Dispute. The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 gave the President
authority to selectively cancel provisions of budget appropriations bills. President
Clinton cancelled one provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that would have kept
the U.S. Government from recouping $2.6 billion in taxes levied against health care
providers by the state of New York, and two provisions in the Taxpayer Relief Act of
1997 that would have permitted a number of food refiners and processors to defer tax
payment if they sold securities to eligible famers’ cooperatives. The appellees, which
included New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHCC) and Snake River
Potato Growers Inc., filed suit in District Court seeking “a declaratory judgment that the
Line Item Veto Act is unconstitutional and that the particular cancellation was invalid”
(406). District Court declared the Act unconstitutional and, thus, the Supreme Court
granted certiorari on expedited appeal.
4. Statute. The Line Item Veto Act.
5. Provision of the Constitution. Article I, Section 7 (the Presentment Clause).
6. Legal Question(s). Do the appellees have standing to challenge the Act’s
constitutionality? Does the Line Item Veto Act violate the Presentment Clause?
7. Outcome. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that appellees had standing to sue and that
the Line Item Veto Act violates the Presentment Clause.
8. Legal Reasoning of the Majority. In delivering the opinion of the Court, Justice
Stevens held that:
a. In compliance with the cancelled provision, appellee NYCHCC must make
retroactive tax payments of up to $4 million to the State. Likewise, appellee
Snake River “lost the benefit of being on equal footing with their competitors and
will likely have to pay more [emphasis my own] to purchase processing facilities”
(406-407). Both appellees face financial injury, thus they have standing to sue.
b. “There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the President to enact, to
amend, or to repeal statutes” (414). Lacking textual support, the Act is
unconstitutional.
c. “If the Line Item Veto Act were valid, it would authorize the President to create a
different law – one whose text was not voted on by either House of Congress or
presented to the President for signature” (429). The Framers’ intent was bills be
passed bicamerally before the President could sign them into law. Lacking
historical support, the Act is unconstitutional.
d. Where the Government states the Act is supported by statutes that grant the
President discretion to “suspen[d] and discontinue[e] statutory duties upon his
#"
"
"