Clinton v. City of New York
Significance, The Line Item Veto, Presentment Clause Violated, Old Power Under New Name?, Impact
President William J. Clinton and other government officials
City of New York, Snake River Potato Growers, Inc., et al.
That the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 delegating increased law making powers to the president by Congress was constitutional.
Chief Lawyer for Appellants
Seth P. Waxman, U.S. Solicitor General
Chief Lawyers for Appellees
Charles Cooper, Louis Cohen
Justices for the Court
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, William H. Rehnquist, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens (writing for the Court), Clarence Thomas
Stephen Breyer, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia
Date of Decision
25 June 1998
Ruled in favor of New York and affirmed a lower court decision by finding that the line-item veto law violated constitutional procedures for making laws.
- Bryant v. Yellen, 447 U.S. 352 (1980).
- Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983).
- Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997).
Bacon, Donald C., et al., eds. The Encyclopedia of the United States Congress. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995.
- Clinton v. Jones - Significance, Court Rejects Immunity Claim, Should Civil Suits Against The President Be Stalled Until He Is Out Of Office?
- City of Boerne v. Flores - Significance, Court Limits Scope Of Congressional Power, Impact, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Further Readings
- Clinton v. City of New York - Further Readings
- Clinton v. City of New York - Significance
- Clinton v. City of New York - The Line Item Veto
- Clinton v. City of New York - Presentment Clause Violated
- Clinton v. City of New York - Old Power Under New Name?
- Clinton v. City of New York - Impact
- Clinton v. City of New York - The Line-item Veto
- Other Free Encyclopedias