Plaintiffs Challenged The Constitutionality

Running head: CASE BRIEF 1
Case Brief
Name
Institution

CASE BRIEF 2
Case Brief
Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)
This was an appeal before the Supreme Court. It emanated from a judgment in favor of
Respondents by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which consolidated two
suits filed by Snake River Potato Growers incorporated and City of New York. The Plaintiffs
challenged the Constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 which granted the president
the power to cancel certain provisions of Appropriation Bills. President Clinton had pursuant to
powers bestowed on him under Line Item Veto Act cancelled certain provisions of Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 which eliminated certain liabilities that health related organizations were to
incur, and the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 which granted tax benefits with an aim of
incentivizing farmer's cooperatives in purchasing potato processing facilities.
The Supreme Court held that Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was unconstitutional for the reason that
it was contrary to presentment clause of the Constitution being that it granted the president
power to amend or repeal parts of legally enacted legislations. The court relied on written records
of the ratification of the Constitution (Federalist Papers) in attempts to interpret presentment
clause. The Supreme Court found that as per historical records, statutes have to be enacted or
legislated according to clearly set out procedure under the Constitution. Where a statute is passed
in a manner that is not in accord with clear prescription of the constitution it is unconstitutional.