Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 508

524US2

Unit: $U93

[09-11-00 13:25:42] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 417 (1998)

463

Opinion of Scalia, J.

Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of
Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 474, 476 (1982). While
Snake River in the present case may indeed have enough of
a “stake” to assure adverseness, the matter it brings before
us is inappropriate for our resolution because its allegations
do not establish an injury in fact, attributable to the Presi-
dential action it challenges, and remediable by this Court’s
invalidation of that Presidential action.

Because, in my view, Snake River has no standing to bring
this suit, we have no jurisdiction to resolve its challenge to
the President’s authority to cancel a “limited tax beneﬁt.”

III

I agree with the Court that the New York appellees have
standing to challenge the President’s cancellation of § 4722(c)
of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 as an “item of new direct
spending.” See ante, at 430–431. The tax liability they
will incur under New York law is a concrete and particular-
ized injury, fairly traceable to the President’s action, and
avoided if that action is undone. Unlike the Court, however,
I do not believe that Executive cancellation of this item of
direct spending violates the Presentment Clause.

The Presentment Clause requires, in relevant part, that
“[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Repre-
sentatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be
presented to the President of the United States; If he ap-
prove he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it.” U. S.
Const., Art. I, § 7, cl. 2. There is no question that enactment
of the Balanced Budget Act complied with these require-
ments: the House and Senate passed the bill, and the Presi-
dent signed it into law.
It was only after the requirements
of the Presentment Clause had been satisﬁed that the Presi-
dent exercised his authority under the Line Item Veto Act
to cancel the spending item. Thus, the Court’s problem with
the Act is not that it authorizes the President to veto parts
of a bill and sign others into law, but rather that it authorizes