Clinton v. City of New York (1998)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act, allowing the President to cancel specific spending items after signing a bill into law. President Clinton used the power to cancel certain budget items. The Supreme Court struck down the Act, holding that it violated the Presentment Clause because it effectively let the President amend or repeal laws unilaterally.

3) Why It Mattered
This decision reaffirmed the strict process of bicameralism and presentment: Congress makes laws, and the President either signs or vetoes them in full. No shortcuts.

4) What It Provided or Took Away

• Provided: A strong reminder that the Constitution requires the full legislative process.
• Took Away: The President’s ability to selectively cancel parts of duly enacted laws.

5) Overreach or Proper Role?
The Court stayed true to constitutional text and structure. It was a necessary check on executive overreach.

6) Plain-English Impact Today
The President cannot pick and choose which parts of a law to enforce after signing it. Spending bills and laws must be accepted or vetoed in their entirety.

• Separation of Powers
• Presentment Clause
• Line-Item Veto
• Presidency