Line-Item Veto Explainer
A line-item veto is an executive power to reject specified parts of a measure while allowing the remainder to take effect. It is commonly associated with appropriations bills containing distinct spending items. The idea differs from a veto of an entire bill, which rejects the package as a whole under the applicable constitutional procedure. Whether an executive possesses selective veto authority, and how far it extends, depends on the relevant legal framework. The label does not supply a power that a constitution or law otherwise withholds.
Many U.S. state constitutions give governors some form of authority to disapprove items in appropriation bills. The details differ, including what qualifies as an item and how the legislature can respond. Pennsylvania’s constitution, for example, provides for disapproval of distinct appropriation items while approved parts become law, subject to the stated override rules. A state’s arrangement cannot simply be transferred to the federal government. The state and federal constitutions allocate legislative and executive powers through their own provisions.
At the federal level, the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 allowed the president to cancel certain provisions under its procedures. In Clinton v. City of New York in 1998, the Supreme Court held that mechanism unconstitutional under the Constitution’s presentment requirements. This history is important because an ordinary presidential veto is not a general power to edit a bill after Congress passes it. Proposals for controlling spending through other procedures must be assessed on their own legal design rather than treated as identical to the invalidated mechanism.
Imagine a governor receiving a budget with several distinct appropriations. Where the state constitution permits it, the governor might approve the package while disapproving a specified item. Questions could still arise about the scope of the item or the procedure for an override. Supporters see selective veto authority as a tool for scrutinizing spending; critics may worry about executive leverage over legislative choices. For readers, the questions are which executive is acting, what text is being rejected, and what authority permits the action. Those details distinguish a lawful selective veto from a broader claim to rewrite enacted legislation.
A line-item veto rejects specified portions while allowing the remainder to take effect under an authorized procedure.
Selective veto authority depends on the governing constitution or law. It cannot be assumed from an executive’s policy preference.
State governors’ powers vary, including the definition of an item and the legislature’s override process.
The federal 1996 cancellation mechanism was held unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York in 1998.
An ordinary U.S. presidential veto does not confer a general power to remove chosen provisions from a bill and approve the rest.
Identify the executive, the rejected text, and the legal authority. Different proposals for spending control require separate analysis.
Explore more "Explainers"
Discover additional explainers across politics, science, business, technology, and other fields. Each explainer breaks down a complex idea into clear, everyday language—helping you better understand how major concepts, systems, and debates shape the world around us.