The U.S. Supreme Court case William J. Clinton, President of the United States, et al. v. City of New York, et al., 1997 was a landmark decision that ruled the Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional on the grounds it violated the Presentment Clause of the Constitution. The act had granted presidents power to selectively nullify certain parts of bills passed by Congress without vetoing an entire bill; however, six members from both houses and two city hospital associations challenged this law after their funds were cancelled by President Bill Clinton using his line-item veto authority in 1996 and 1997 respectively. The court held that if individual items within bills could be unilaterally rejected by a president then it would give him/her legislative powers which are explicitly denied under Article I section 1 of US constitution thus violating separation-of-powers doctrine.

In the dissenting opinion for Clinton v. City of New York, Justice Breyer argued that the Line Item Veto Act did not violate the Presentment Clause of the Constitution. He contended that this clause should be interpreted in light of its purpose - to prevent Congress from enacting laws without presidential approval and vice versa. According to him, this purpose was not compromised by giving presidents a line-item veto power because it only allowed them to cancel specific spending items rather than enact new laws unilaterally. Furthermore, he believed that such a power could help curb wasteful government spending and promote fiscal responsibility. Finally, he pointed out that many state governors already had similar powers without causing constitutional crises or undermining legislative authority.