Clinton v. City of New York (1998)

Presidents of both parties had long sought a line item veto, the power many governors have to strike individual spending items from bills. In the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, part of the Republican Contract with America agenda, Congress gave the President authority to cancel individual items of discretionary spending, new direct spending, and limited tax benefits within five days after signing a bill, with cancellations taking effect unless Congress passed a disapproval bill. President Bill Clinton used the power 82 times in 1997, including to cancel a provision benefiting New York City's hospitals and a tax break for agricultural cooperatives.

An earlier challenge by members of Congress failed in Raines v. Byrd in 1997, when the Court held they lacked standing. The City of New York and an Idaho potato growers' cooperative, which had lost specific benefits, then sued. On June 25, 1998, the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3, in an opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, that the act violated the Presentment Clause of Article I, because it let the President amend or repeal parts of duly enacted statutes, producing laws that neither house had passed in that form.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, concurring, stressed that the separation of powers protects liberty, while Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer, in dissents, argued the act was a permissible delegation of discretion over spending, much like authority Congress had given Presidents before. The ruling means a true line item veto would require a constitutional amendment. Congress has since considered expedited rescission procedures, in which the President proposes cuts and Congress must vote on them quickly, as a constitutional alternative.