Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 462.0

524US2

Unit: $U93

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

OCTOBER TERM, 1997

417

Syllabus

CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
et al. v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al.

appeal from the united states district court for the
district of columbia

No. 97–1374. Argued April 27, 1998—Decided June 25, 1998

Last Term, this Court determined on expedited review that Members of
Congress did not have standing to maintain a constitutional challenge
to the Line Item Veto Act (Act), 2 U. S. C. § 691 et seq., because they
had not alleged a sufﬁciently concrete injury. Raines v. Byrd, 521 U. S.
811. Within two months, the President exercised his authority under
the Act by canceling § 4722(c) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which
waived the Federal Government’s statutory right to recoupment of as
much as $2.6 billion in taxes that the State of New York had levied
against Medicaid providers, and § 968 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997,
which permitted the owners of certain food reﬁners and processors to
defer recognition of capital gains if they sold their stock to eligible farm-
ers’ cooperatives. Appellees, claiming they had been injured, ﬁled sep-
arate actions against the President and other ofﬁcials challenging the
cancellations. The plaintiffs in the ﬁrst case are the City of New York,
two hospital associations, one hospital, and two unions representing
health care employees. The plaintiffs in the second are the Snake
River farmers’ cooperative and one of its individual members. The Dis-
trict Court consolidated the cases, determined that at least one of the
plaintiffs in each had standing under Article III, and ruled, inter alia,
that the Act’s cancellation procedures violate the Presentment Clause,
Art. I, § 7, cl. 2. This Court again expedited its review.

Held:

1. The appellees have standing to challenge the Act’s constitutional-
ity. They invoked the District Court’s jurisdiction under a section enti-
tled “Expedited review,” which, among other things, expressly author-
izes “any individual adversely affected” to bring a constitutional
challenge.
§ 692(a)(1). The Government’s argument that none of them
except the individual Snake River member is an “individual” within
§ 692(a)(1)’s meaning is rejected because, in the context of the entire
it is clear that Congress meant that word to be construed
section,
broadly to include corporations and other entities. The Court is also
unpersuaded by the Government’s argument that appellees’ challenge is
nonjusticiable. These cases differ from Raines, not only because the
President’s exercise of his cancellation authority has removed any con-