Clinton v. City of New York
1998 U.S. Supreme Court case declaring the line-item veto unconstitutional / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Clinton v. City of New York?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998),[1] was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that the line-item veto, as granted in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution because it impermissibly gave the President of the United States the power to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of statutes that had been duly passed by the United States Congress.[2] Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the six-justice majority that the line-item veto gave the President power over legislation unintended by the Constitution, and was therefore an overstep in their duties.[3]
Clinton v. City of New York | |
---|---|
Argued April 27, 1998 Decided June 25, 1998 | |
Full case name | William J. Clinton, President of the United States, et al. v. City of New York, et al. |
Citations | 524 U.S. 417 (more) 118 S. Ct. 2091; 141 L. Ed. 2d 393; 1998 U.S. LEXIS 4215; 66 U.S.L.W. 4543; 98-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 50,504; 81 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2416; 98 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4905; 98 Daily Journal DAR 6893; 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 3191; 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 735 |
Case history | |
Prior | Judgment for plaintiffs, 985 F. Supp. 168 (D.D.C. 1998) |
Holding | |
The Line Item Veto Act is unconstitutional because the Constitution of the United States of America does not authorize the President of the United States of America to amend federal legislation that has passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate in Congress. Line-item vetoes are unlawful. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Stevens, joined by Rehnquist, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg |
Concurrence | Kennedy |
Concur/dissent | Scalia, joined by O'Connor; Breyer (Part III) |
Dissent | Breyer, joined by O'Connor, Scalia (Part III) |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. art. I; 2 U.S.C. § 691 et seq. (1994 ed., Supp. II) (Line Item Veto Act of 1996) |