Clinton v. City of New York

Facts

Congress enacted the Line Item Veto Act in April 1996, and it took effect on January 1, 1997. The Act let the President cancel three kinds of provisions after he had signed them into law: dollar amounts of discretionary budget authority, items of new direct spending, and limited tax benefits. A cancellation prevented the item from having legal force or effect. The President canceled one provision of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and two of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Two of those cancellations, made on August 11, 1997, are at issue; in making them he followed the Act's procedures. The first, section 4722(c) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, had resolved a dispute in New York's favor. The federal Department of Health and Human Services had told New York it had to return $955 million because of certain taxes on health care providers, and section 4722(c) deemed those taxes permissible. The second, section 968 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, let owners of certain food refiners and processors defer tax on their gain if they sold their stock to farmers' cooperatives. The cancellation of section 4722(c) revived New York's contingent liability. The cancellation of section 968 ended talks between Snake River Potato Growers, a cooperative of about 30 Idaho potato growers, and the owner of a potato processor that would have qualified for the benefit.

Issues

1. Does the Act's expedited review section, which speaks of individuals adversely affected, reach corporate and governmental plaintiffs?
2. Do the appellees have Article III standing to challenge the President's cancellations of section 4722(c) and section 968?
3. Do the Line Item Veto Act's cancellation procedures, which let the President prevent parts of duly enacted laws from having legal force or effect, violate the Presentment Clause of Article I, section 7?

Holding

The Line Item Veto Act's cancellation procedures violate the Presentment Clause. They let the President, after signing a bill, unilaterally amend or repeal parts of duly enacted statutes. The Court so held on that narrow ground, after finding the appellees had standing.