Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 498

524US2

Unit: $U93

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

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

453

Opinion of Scalia, J.

tution could not command statesmanship. They could sim-
ply provide structures from which it might emerge. The
fact that these mechanisms, plus the proper functioning of
the separation of powers itself, are not employed, or that
they prove insufﬁcient, cannot validate an otherwise uncon-
stitutional device. With these observations, I join the opin-
ion of the Court.

Justice Scalia, with whom Justice O(cid:146)Connor joins, and
with whom Justice Breyer joins as to Part III, concurring
in part and dissenting in part.

Today the Court acknowledges the “ ‘overriding and time-
honored concern about keeping the Judiciary’s power within
its proper constitutional sphere.’ ” Ante, at 421, quoting
Raines v. Byrd, 521 U. S. 811, 820 (1997).
It proceeds, how-
ever, to ignore the prescribed statutory limits of our jurisdic-
tion by permitting the expedited-review provisions of the
Line Item Veto Act to be invoked by persons who are not
“individual[s],” 2 U. S. C. § 692 (1994 ed., Supp. II); and to
ignore the constitutional limits of our jurisdiction by permit-
ting one party to challenge the Government’s denial to an-
other party of favorable tax treatment from which the ﬁrst
party might, but just as likely might not, gain a concrete
beneﬁt.
In my view, the Snake River appellees lack stand-
ing to challenge the President’s cancellation of the “limited
tax beneﬁt,” and the constitutionality of that action should
not be addressed.
I think the New York appellees have
standing to challenge the President’s cancellation of an “item
of new direct spending”; I believe we have statutory author-
ity (other than the expedited-review provision) to address
that challenge; but unlike the Court I ﬁnd the President’s
cancellation of spending items to be entirely in accord with
the Constitution.

I

The Court’s unrestrained zeal to reach the merits of this
case is evident in its disregard of the statute’s expedited-