U.S. Judge Rules Line-Item Veto Unconstitutional Law Usurps Authority Of Congress

One year after enactment of a law giving the president line-item veto power over congressional spending bills, a federal judge ruled Thursday that the law is unconstitutional.

The line-item veto allows a president to strike individual items from appropriations bills, making it possible to eliminate “pork-barrel” projects without rejecting an entire spending bill.

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., who along with five other lawmakers filed a lawsuit challenging the law as an unconstitutional abrogation of congressional powers, called U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson’s decision “a great victory for the American people … and our constitutional system of checks and balances.”

The decision disappointed champions of the line-item veto, which was part of the Republicans’ “Contract With America.” But they also recognized that it was vulnerable to constitutional arguments.

“I always knew it would be challenged,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican who supported the law. “The question was: Would it be overturned?” Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., an original sponsor of the measure, predicted it will be affirmed on appeal. “I believe that when this case gets to the Supreme Court, wisdom will prevail.”

The law provides for “direct review” by the Supreme Court, bypassing the federal appellate court level.

In explaining his decision, Jackson, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, wrote that a president cannot pick and choose which parts of a bill to reject. Under the system of checks and balances in the Constitution, Congress writes laws and the president can either sign or veto them.

But the veto must be of entire bills, not parts of them, Jackson wrote in his 36-page decision. Otherwise, the constitutional power of Congress to make law is corrupted. “(T)he act effectively permits the president to repeal duly enacted provisions of federal law. This he cannot do,” the decision said.

“Even if Congress may sometimes delegate authority to impound funds,” the judge wrote, “it may not confer the power permanently to rescind an appropriation or tax benefit that has become the law of the United States. That power is possessed by Congress alone, and, according to the Framers’ careful design, may not be delegated at all.”

In Congress, the many opponents of the line-item veto had made similar agruments - that the law would upset the constitutional system of checks and balances by shifting power to the executive branch and away from the legislative.

There were some concerns in the Republican-led Congress that a Democratic president might use the line-item veto to punish his political enemies by striking out spending projects for their home districts or states.

Overriding such fears was a desire to restrain Congress’ penchant for loading up spending bills with self-serving projects - although critics noted that pork-barrel spending benefiting individual lawmakers’ constituents is only a tiny fraction of the federal budget.

For example, the line-item veto does not apply to money spent on entitlement programs like Medicare, the medical program for the elderly, whose costs have been spiraling out of control.

Byrd was the most prominent foe of the line-item veto in Congress. A former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and now its top Democrat, he is known as the “King of Pork” for his ability to direct federal funding for highways and other projects back to West Virginia.

“I viewed the passage of that (line-item veto) law as one of the darkest moments in the history of the Republic,” Byrd said Thursday

In addition to Byrd, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit were Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, Representatives David Skaggs of Colorado and Henry Waxman of California, and former Sen. Mark Hatfield of Oregon.

In the last Congress, supporters of the line-item veto tried to get around such objections by passing a constitutional amendment granting the veto power, but they failed.

“Obviously we are disappointed,” a White House spokeswoman said. The decision, however, was expected to have little impact on current budget negotiations.

Although Clinton signed the law on April 9, 1996, it did not become effective until January 1, 1997. Because Congress has not sent any spending bills to the president this year, Clinton has never had a chance to exercise a line-item veto.