.svg) | |
| Long title | An Act To give the President line item veto authority with respect to appropriations, new direct spending, and limited tax benefits. |
|---|---|
| Enacted by | the104th United States Congress |
| Citations | |
| Public law | Pub. L. 104–130 (text)(PDF) |
| Statutes at Large | 110 Stat. 1200 |
| Legislative history | |
| |
| United States Supreme Court cases | |
| Clinton v. City of New York | |
TheLine Item Veto ActPub. L. 104–130 (text)(PDF) was a federal law of theUnited States that granted the president the power toline-item veto budget bills passed byCongress. It was signed into law on April 9, 1996, but its effect was brief since it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court just over two years later, inClinton v. City of New York.[1]
The bill was introduced by SenatorBob Dole on January 4, 1995, cosponsored by SenatorJohn McCain and 29 other senators. Related House Bills includedH.R. 147,H.R. 391,H.R. 2,H.R. 27 andH.R. 3136. The bill was signed into law by PresidentBill Clinton on April 9, 1996.
It was immediately challenged in theUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia by a group of six senators, first among whom was SenatorRobert Byrd (D-WV), where it was declared unconstitutional byDistrict Judge Harry Jackson, aReagan appointee, on April 10, 1997. The case was subsequently remanded by theSupreme Court of the United States with instructions to dismiss on the grounds that the senators had not suffered sufficient, particularized injury to maintain suit underArticle III of theUnited States Constitution (i.e., the senators lacked standing). The case,Raines v. Byrd,521 U.S.811 (1997), was handed down on June 26, 1997, and did not include a judgment on the constitutional grounds of the law.
Clinton subsequently used the veto on a provision of theBalanced Budget Act of 1997 and two provisions of theTaxpayer Relief Act of 1997, each of which was challenged in a separate case: one by theCity of New York, two hospital associations, one hospital, and two health care unions; the other by a farmers' cooperative fromIdaho and an individual member of the cooperative. SenatorsByrd,Moynihan,Levin, andHatfield again opposed the law, this time throughAmicus curiae briefs.
JudgeThomas Hogan of theUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia combined the cases and declared the lawunconstitutional on February 12, 1998.[2] This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998, by a 6–3 decision of theSupreme Court of the United States in the caseClinton v. City of New York. JusticesBreyer,Scalia, andO'Connor dissented. The ruling has been criticized by some legal scholars.[3]