Search results
Brief Fact Summary. President Clinton’s exercise of power under the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 to make cancellations in a Congressional Act was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States because the President must either veto the entire law or approve the entire law.
Justice Kennedy's concurrence in Clinton v. City of New York underscores a deep concern for the constitutional order and the principles of separation of powers that underpin the United States government's structure.
Brief Fact Summary. The Appellees brought an action in the Supreme Court of United States (Supreme Court) against the President of the United States William Clinton (President Clinton).
6 kwi 2024 · Quick Summary. President Clinton (defendant) used the Line Item Veto Act to cancel provisions in two federal Acts, affecting New York (plaintiff) and Idaho potato farmers (plaintiffs). The plaintiffs argued that the cancellations caused immediate financial harm and challenged their constitutionality.
12 lut 2019 · Following is the case brief for Clinton v. New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) Case Summary of Clinton v. New York: President Clinton exercised his new powers under the Line Item Veto Act. Those impacted by the exercise of the line-item veto sued in federal court.
Clinton v. City of New York Case Brief Summary: The president canceled parts of a law that caused injury to health care providers and potato growers. The courts had to decide if this was constitutional or not.
Get Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 118 S. Ct. 2091, 141 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1998), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee.
