To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




Clinton v. City of New York

Law Dictionary

Law Dictionary

Featuring Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed.
Font size

Constitutional Law Keyed to Cohen

View this case and other resources at:
Bloomberg Law

Citation. 22 Ill.524 U.S. 417, 118 S. Ct. 2091, 141 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1998)

Brief Fact Summary. President Clinton’s exercise of power under the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 to make cancellations in a Congressional Act was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States because the President must either veto the entire law or approve the entire law.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The provisions allowing cancellations in the Line Item Veto Act are unconstitutional because it gives the President unilateral authority to change the text of duly enacted statutes, and thus violates Article I Section:7 of the Constitution.

Facts. Appellant, President Clinton, exercised his power under the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 by canceling two provisions in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that adversely affected New York. Appellees, New York City and several private organizations, challenged the constitutionality of the cancellations. The Supreme Court of the United States found that the challengers met both prudential and Article III standing requirements, and further held that the cancellation provisions in the Line Item Veto are not authorized by the Constitution.

Issue. Whether the provisions in the Line Item Veto Act that allow the President to cancel certain types of provisions of a law are constitutional.
See More Course Videos

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following