New York was a Supreme Court case between multiple individuals and organizations throughout the country, and President Bill Clinton. The case was over the President's right to only veto a certain portion of a bill and pass the remaining part of the bill. The goal during the time of President Bill Clinton was to legally nullify certain provisions or parts of a Balanced Budget Act in 1997. President Clinton used the right to do this through the Line Item Veto Act. Two separate actions were filled in two different district courts against Clinton, and other federal officials challenged the cancelations. The original plaintiffs in the district court cases were the City of New York, two hospital associations, and two unions representing health care employees. The case was consolidated by the District Courts and ruled unconstitutional, then brought to the Supreme Court under Writ of Certiorari on expedited appeal. .
The history of the case started in April 1996 when the Line Veto Act was enacted in to the Constitution and became effective on January 1st, 1997. On June 10th, 1997; President Bill Clinton exercised his right to use this act to cancel one provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and two provisions in the Tax Payer Relief Act of 1997. Those are the real reason why all of the plaintiffs appealed the President's actions because those changes had a massive negative affect on their businesses. Appellees that claimed that they had been affected in the cancellation of the provisioned and filed cases in the District Courts, however they ruled the case invalid. The Appellees filed a challenge the constitutionality of the act and tried to have it removed and ruled unconstitutional, and President Clinton fought back. On August 11th, 1997, President Clinton released a notice to the House of Representatives and the City of New York stating that the cancelation would reduce the Federal Budget Deficit, enable New York to rely on provider taxes to finance the medicate program, as an attempt to draw heat away from the situation and to defend his position on the case.
