Facts
- Congress enacted the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, authorizing the President, after signing a bill, to “cancel” specified spending and tax provisions by special message, subject to a congressional “disapproval bill” procedure.
- President Clinton used the Act to cancel a provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that benefited New York entities by waiving federal recoupment tied to certain Medicaid-related taxes.
- The cancellation allegedly exposed the City of New York, hospital associations, a hospital, and health-care unions to financial harm by removing that statutory benefit.
- President Clinton also canceled a provision in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 creating a tax-deferral advantage for certain transactions involving farmers’ cooperatives.
- The Snake River Potato Growers cooperative and a member alleged economic harm from the loss of that statutory tax benefit.
- The plaintiffs filed separate suits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the cancellations and the Act; the cases were consolidated.
- The district court found standing and held the Act unconstitutional under the Presentment Clause; the Supreme Court took the case on direct, expedited review.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiffs had Article III standing based on injuries allegedly caused by the President’s cancellations.
- Whether the Line Item Veto Act violates Article I’s Presentment Clause by authorizing the President to cancel portions of duly enacted statutes.
Decision
- The Supreme Court affirmed in relevant part, holding (6–3) that the plaintiffs had standing and that the Line Item Veto Act was unconstitutional.
- The Court held the plaintiffs alleged concrete, particularized, and redressable economic injuries stemming from the cancellations, unlike the abstract institutional injury rejected in prior litigation by Members of Congress.
- On the merits, the Court held that once the President signs a bill, it becomes law in full, and the Constitution gives the President only the choice to sign or veto the bill as passed.
- The Act’s “cancellation” device changed the legal effect of enacted statutes and operated as the functional equivalent of amending or repealing parts of a law without bicameral passage and presentment.
- The disapproval-bill mechanism impermissibly altered the constitutional lawmaking process by making statutory text inoperative unless Congress acted to restore it, subject to presidential veto.
Legal Principles
- Article I, § 7 requires bicameral passage and presentment for the enactment, amendment, or repeal of federal law; Congress may not alter that procedure by statute.
- The President may approve or veto a bill as a whole; there is no constitutional authority to nullify selected provisions after signing.
- A statutory scheme that authorizes the Executive to render portions of enacted text legally ineffective effects a partial repeal and exceeds executive power under the Presentment Clause.
- Plaintiffs have Article III standing where a challenged executive action causes actual economic injury by eliminating a statutory benefit and where judicial relief would remedy that injury.
Conclusion
The Court invalidated the Line Item Veto Act because it allowed the President to cancel parts of enacted statutes outside Article I’s required bicameralism and presentment, while also recognizing standing for parties who suffered concrete economic harm from the cancellations.