Try our new search engine

Supreme Court Lets Line-Item Veto Law Stand

Justices rule senators lacked standing to challenge the law

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 26) -- In a victory for line-item veto supporters, the Supreme Court ruled today that six lawmakers who challenged the law did not have legal standing. The law, which lets the president delete specific spending items from the federal budget, will likely face a second constitutional review, but for now it remains in place.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist said the lawmakers "have alleged no injury to themselves as individuals."

"The institutional injury they allege is wholly abstract and widely dispersed and their attempt to litigate this dispute at this time and in this form is contrary to historical experience," Rehnquist wrote.

Of the nine justices, only John Paul Stevens and Stephen G. Breyer dissented from the decision. The case was Raines vs. Byrd, 96-1671.

The line-item veto was approved by Congress in March 1996 and took effect on January 1 of this year. It allows the president to strike individual spending items from larger measures, and line-item backers see it as a powerful tool to ferret out wasteful spending, often referred to as "pork barrel."

Since no spending bills have crossed his desk since January, President Bill Clinton has yet to exercise his new power. Forty governors have the authority at the state level.

Reacting favorably to the decision, Clinton said, "I intend to use [the line-item veto] whenever appropriate, and I look forward to using it wisely."

Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), the principal Senate sponsor of the line-item measure, called the court's decision "a victory for common sense and fiscal integrity. There is no constitutional reason why the president should not have the same ability as more than 40 governors to line-item out ridiculous and wasteful spending. This is a good decision and made our historic fight for the line-item veto worth it."

And Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) termed it "obviously a clear victory for the president and those of us who supported the line-item veto. I suspect that if the president has the opportunity to use it, he certainly will and I can't think of a better place to start then the appropriations bills coming up." (192K wav sound)

Opponents of the line-item veto, led by Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, argued that the law usurped congressional authority to write the nation's laws. So Byrd and five other lawmakers sued the Clinton Administration.

"After Congress, made up of 535 individuals, passes a law and sends it to the president, he signs it into law," Byrd said today, explaining his reasoning. The line-item veto "would allow him to change that law unilaterally, and that's not constitutional -- that's not right, that's wrong," Byrd said.

Joining Byrd in the suit were Sens. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.), who has since retired. On the House side, Reps. David Skaggs (D-Colo.) and Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) also joined the action.

The high court had agreed to rule on a fast-track basis. But the justices did not address the underlying constitutional issue of the transfer of power from the legislative to executive branch, and solely addressed whether the lawmakers could legally challenge the measure. It was the first time the high court had considered a challenge to a piece of legislation brought by lawmakers themselves.

Many observers expect that when Clinton first uses the line-item veto, the law's constitutionality will be challenged again, and the Supreme Court made clear it would again consider the case.

Today's decision overruled U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who held in April that the line-item veto law violates the Constitution's separation of powers, which gives Congress the power to tax and spend.

"Where the president signs a bill but then purports to cancel parts of it, he exceeds his constitutional authority and prevents both houses of Congress from participating in the exercise of lawmaking authority," Jackson wrote. "Never before has Congress attempted to give away the power to shape the content of a statute of the United States, as the Act purports to do ... Congress has turned the constitutional division of responsibilities for legislating on its head."

AllPolitics' Craig Staats contributed to this report.