Clinton v City of New York
S. Ct. 1998
Author: Sam Biers

Facts: President Clinton used the Act to cancel one provision of the Balanced Budget Act, and two provisions of the Taxpayer Relief Act.  The portion of the Taxpayer Act would have allowed the facilitation of transfers between refiners and processors to farmers’ coops.  The portion of the Balanced Budget Act would have granted relief to the State of New York for its unpaid portion of taxes related to their funding medical care for the indigent.  NY submitted a waiver but received no answer from HHS. NY then applied under Balanced Budget Act which would have granted money for disputed taxes.

Issue: Whether the appellees have standing to challenge the constitutionality of Line Item Veto Act?

Holding: Yes.

Procedure: Consolidated case involving the same challenge.  U.S. District Court held statute invalid, the cancellations did not conform to the constitutionality for enactment or repealing of laws.  Affirmed.

Rule: Parties involved in a Federal Claim must have an actual injury and the Federal Court must have jurisdiction to hear the case.

Ct Rationale: The parties involved each have a personal stake “in having an actual injury redressed.”  The appellees invoked the jurisdiction of the District Court under the section of the Act entitled “Expedited Review,” which authorizes any individual adversely affected by the Act to bring an action of unconstitutionality.  Each of the parties involved has an actual injury as a result of the exercise of the Line Item Veto.  Each of the parties has asserted that the exercise thereof is unconstitutional.  Each of the parties has a personal stake in the injuries claimed. 

PL A:There is a present and concrete case and controversy involving an actual injury as a result of the President’s application of an unconstitutional act.

Def A: The farmers’ coop fails to show how their injury was present, definite or concrete.  In fact their claim is of a future injury involving an institutional basis.