Clinton v. City of New York

None of the parties disputed before the Court that the New York spending item was not an "item of new direct spending" or the other not a "limited tax benefit." Both qualified for potential elimination under the Line Item Veto Act. The issue was clearly the new presidential authority itself. By a 6-3 vote the Court affirmed the district court's decision. Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, wrote that the Presentment Clause provided the president only two choices upon receipt of a bill from Congress, approval or veto.

Stevens underscored important differences between a president vetoing a bill in its entirety and the Line Item Veto Act. The veto of an entire bill takes place before it becomes law, the partial cancellation occurs afterwards. Stevens found that Clinton essentially amended two acts of Congress by repealing a portion of each. The Constitution contained no provision authorizing the president to amend or repeal statutes. Although Articles I and II of the Constitution both assigned important responsibilities to the president directly related to the lawmaking process, neither provided for piece-meal revision of existing laws.

Consequently, the Line Item Veto Act clearly authorized the president to amend laws for his own policy reasons outside the procedures established in Article I of the Constitution. Stevens was not swayed by Clinton's contention that the president's new authority to cancel new direct spending and tax benefit items was like his traditional authority not to spend appropriated funds. The critical difference was that previous laws allowing presidential spending discretion had very specific congressional guidance. Stevens summarized,

We do not lightly conclude that their action was unauthorized by the Constitution . . . Our decision rests on the narrow ground that the procedures authorized by the Line Item Veto Act are not authorized by the Constitution. If there is to be a new procedure in which the President will play a different role in determining the final text of what may become a law, such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution.