Appealed From: U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia
Subjects: Line-Item Veto; Presidential Authority

At Issue: Does the Line Item Veto Act, which gives the president conditional authority to cancel certain spending and revenue items, violate the principles of separation of powers? Do the plaintiffs in this case have standing to bring this lawsuit?

Decision: By a 6-3 vote, the court struck down the line-item veto law, saying the Constitution does not allow the president to cancel specific items in tax and spending measures.

• Read the full text of the Clinton, et al. v. New York City, et al. decision at the Findlaw Internet Legal Resources Web site.

• Listen to the Clinton v. City of New York oral argument in RealAudio at the Oyez Oyez Oyez Web site.

• In Raines v. Byrd, a related case decided by the Supreme Court during the 1996-97 term, the justices ruled that the plaintiffs did not have sufficient standing to file suit because the president had not yet used his new line-item veto authority.

• Look at the section the U.S. Code dealing with line-item veto authority (2 U.S.C. 691 et seq.) at the U.S. House of Representatives Internet Law Library Web site.

• Read Article I of the U.S. Constitution and its separation of powers provisions at Findlaw.

Sources: The Washington Post, Supreme Court, The United States Law Week (a Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. publication)