Clinton v. City of New York

Justice Breyer, joined in dissent by Justice O'Connor and Justice Scalia, wrote, "In my view the Line Item Veto Act does not violate any specific textual constitutional command, nor does it violate any implicit Separation of Powers principle. Consequently, I believe that the Act is constitutional." Breyer, acknowledging that the functioning of the three branches of government with one another is always evolving, summarized his dissent,

I recognize that the Act before us is novel. In a sense, it skirts a constitutional edge. But that edge has to do with means, not ends. The means chosen do not amount literally to the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a law. Nor, for that matter, do they amount literally to the "line item veto" that the Act's title announces . . . They do not improperly shift the constitutionally foreseen balance of power from Congress to the President. Nor, since they comply with Separation of Powers principles, do they threaten the liberties of individual citizens. They represent an experiment that may, or may not, help representative government work better. The Constitution, in my view, authorizes Congress and the President to try novel methods in this way. Consequently, with respect, I dissent.

Scalia contended that the president's discretion under the Line Item Veto Act was no broader than the discretion traditionally granted the president in his execution of spending laws. Scalia wrote,

The title of the Line Item Veto Act, which was perhaps designed to simplify for public comprehension, or perhaps merely to comply with the terms of a campaign pledge, has succeeded in faking out the Supreme Court. The President's action it authorizes in fact is not a line-item veto . . . and insofar as the substance of that action is concerned, it is no different from what Congress has permitted the President to do since the formation of the Union.