The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 aimed to provide the President of the United States a new tool for budget management by allowing him to reject specific provisions of legislation without vetoing the entire bill. This act was viewed as a way to control wasteful spending by Congress. However, the law was contested and led to a landmark case by New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani among others, who challenged its constitutionality. The case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1998, which ultimately ruled against the line item veto.

The Supreme Court found that the Line Item Veto Act violated the Presentment Clause of the Constitution, which requires that legislation be presented in its entirety to the President for approval or rejection. The justices emphasized that this clause was critical for maintaining the system of checks and balances established by the Constitution, ensuring that Congress could not circumvent full legislative scrutiny. The Court’s decision preserved the existing legislative process and reaffirmed the separation of powers among the branches of government.

This ruling not only affected presidential powers but also influenced subsequent discussions on budgetary control, executive authority, and congressional procedures. It set a precedent regarding the limits of executive power in the legislative process and initiated further debates on how future presidents could work with Congress to manage fiscal policy.