Clinton v. City of New York

The Court ruled that a president holds no constitutional power to sign into law a bill different from the one sent to him by Congress. Though some supporters of the line-item veto vowed to pursue its acceptance, many became disillusioned after seeing how ineffective it appeared to be in practice. Sparingly using the new authority, Clinton reduced the 1997 budget less than one-tenth of one percent. Clinton largely sought to minimize conflict with Republican leadership who controlled Congress because of legislation he wished to see passed. The brief experiment demonstrated that effects on the legislative process were more political than fiscal. The president's role to bargain with Congress and influence laws was greatly increased, even changing how Washington lobbyists operated.

Governors of 43 states held line item veto power with few issues raised over their authority. But many asserted, the role of the president was far different than a state governor. Still, proponents claimed such a "veto" power served as a symbolic reminder to legislators to maintain some fiscal responsibility by minimizing expensive pet projects for their constituents back home.