8/7/2019 Legal Brief: Clinton v City of New York

1/2

!"

"

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 Presidentauthority to selectively cancel provisions of budget appropriations bills. PresidentClinton cancelled one provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that would have keptthe U.S. Government from recouping $2.6 billion in taxes levied against health careproviders 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 taxpayment if they sold securities to eligible famers cooperatives. The appellees, whichincluded 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 Courtgranted 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 Acts

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, appelleeSnake River lost the benefit of being on equal footing with their competitors andwill 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, toamend, or to repeal statutes (414). Lacking textual support, the Act isunconstitutional.

c.

If the Line Item Veto Act were valid, it would authorize the President to create adifferent 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 bepassed bicamerally before the President could sign them into law. Lackinghistorical support, the Act is unconstitutional.

d. Where the Government states the Act is supported by statutes that grant thePresident discretion to suspen[d] and discontinue[e] statutory duties upon his

8/7/2019 Legal Brief: Clinton v City of New York

2/2

#"

"

determination that discriminatory duties imposed by other nations had beenabolished (418), the Court affirms in the foreign affairs arena the President hasa degree of discretion and freedom from statutory restriction which would not beadmissible were domestic affairs alone [emphasis my own] involved (418). See:United States v. Curtis Wright Export Corp.

9. Legal Doctrine. The President may no longer selectively cancel provisions of budgetaryappropriation bills. If he is to veto a bill, he must veto it in its entirety.

10. Other Points of View.a. Justice Kennedy concurred: The Act may curb excessive government spending,

but is unconstitutional . Furthermore, Justice Breyers assertion that the Act doesnot put civil liberties in peril is incorrect. Concentration of power in the hands of a single branch is a threat to liberty (421). The Act allows the President, sansCongressional approval, to help one set of taxpayers and hurt another (422).The Framers recognized such power in excess as a move toward tyranny.

b.

Justice Breyer (with whom Justice OConnor and Justice Scalia joined as to PartIII) dissented: The parties have standing to sue, but the Act does not violate thePresentment Clause. At our Nations founding, the population was less than four million, and relative few appropriations bills were drafted. Congress needed onlysubmit a few bills to the President and have him choose that which he cared for.With a greater population, more money spent, and more bills working their waythrough, Congress cannot divide a bill into a thousand appropriations bills. Thus,the question is whether the Constitution permits Congress to choose a particular novel means to achieve the same, constitutionally legitimate, end (434). Onemay conclude the Framers intended the Executive to exercise this power, which

assures the Acts constitutionality. Furthermore, the Act is in concert with theseparation of powers doctrine and in no way threatens the civil liberties of theAmerican people.

c. Justice Scalia (with whom Justice OConnor joins, and with whom Justice Breyer joins as to Part III), concurred in part and dissented in part: Appellees, save one,have no standing to sue, thus the Court has no jurisdiction to resolve . . . [this]challenge to the Presidents authority to cancel a limited tax benefit (429). Theone appellee with standing may challenge the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Thatsaid, the Constitution does not deny the President authority to selectively cancelprovisions. There is no difference between Congress authorizing the President tocancel a spending item, and Congresss authorizing money to be spent on aparticular item at the Presidents discretion, (431-432) an act performed sinceour Nations founding. See: Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States.

"