---
title: "Line-Item Veto — AP Gov Definition & Exam Guide"
description: "The line-item veto let a president cancel specific spending items in a bill. Struck down in Clinton v. City of New York (1998) for violating separation of powers."
canonical: "https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/key-terms/line-item-veto"
type: "key-term"
subject: "AP US Government"
unit: "Unit 2"
---

# Line-Item Veto — AP Gov Definition & Exam Guide

## Definition

The line-item veto is the power to cancel specific spending provisions in a bill while signing the rest into law; Congress gave it to the president in 1996, but the Supreme Court struck it down in Clinton v. City of New York (1998) as a violation of the Constitution's presentment process.

## What It Is

A line-item veto lets an executive cross out individual spending items in an appropriations bill and sign everything else. Compare that to the regular [veto](/ap-gov/unit-2/roles-power-president/study-guide/KcDjpoM3Ni4qA4Y3Um4K "fv-autolink"), which is all-or-nothing. The [president](/ap-gov/unit-1/principles-american-government/study-guide/BXlQvFOiaKwhntWYhgKP "fv-autolink") either signs the whole bill or rejects the whole bill. Congress tried to change that with the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, giving the president scissors instead of just a stamp.

It didn't last. In **Clinton v. City of New York (1998)**, the [Supreme Court](/ap-gov/key-terms/supreme-court "fv-autolink") ruled the law unconstitutional because it violated the presentment process in Article I. The Constitution says a bill passes both houses, goes to the president, and gets signed or vetoed as a whole. Letting the president edit a bill after passage effectively gave one person the power to rewrite legislation, which is Congress's job. Many state governors do have a line-item veto under their state constitutions, but the federal president does not.

## Why It Matters

This term lives in **Topic 2.4 (Roles and Power of the President)** in [Unit 2](/ap-gov/unit-2 "fv-autolink") and supports learning objective **[AP Gov](/ap-gov "fv-autolink") 2.4.A**, which asks you to explain how presidents implement a policy agenda using formal and informal powers. The CED is explicit that vetoes and pocket vetoes are the president's formal checks on Congress, and the line-item veto is the perfect counterexample. It shows where presidential power stops. Presidents wanted it because it would supercharge their control over spending, but the Court said the Constitution's separation of powers wins. That makes it a go-to example whenever the exam asks about limits on presidential power or tension between the branches.

## Connections

### Veto and Pocket Veto (Unit 2)

These are the president's actual, constitutional checks on Congress. The regular veto can be overridden by a 2/3 vote in both chambers; the [pocket veto](/ap-gov/key-terms/pocket-veto "fv-autolink") cannot be overridden. The line-item veto is the upgrade presidents wanted but the Constitution doesn't allow.

### Congress and the Power of the Purse (Unit 2)

Article I gives Congress control over spending. A line-item veto would let the president pick apart appropriations [bills](/ap-gov/key-terms/bills "fv-autolink") line by line, which shifts budget power from the legislative branch to the executive. That's exactly why the Court saw it as a separation of powers problem.

### Judicial Review and Checks on the Other Branches (Unit 2)

Clinton v. City of New York (1998) is the [judiciary](/ap-gov/key-terms/judiciary "fv-autolink") checking both elected branches at once. Congress passed the law, the president used it, and the Court struck it down anyway. It's a clean example of all three branches colliding.

### Article II and the Chief Executive Role (Unit 2)

Presidents argued a line-item veto would help them execute the budget efficiently as Chief Executive. The Court's answer was that Article II powers don't include rewriting what Congress passed. Executing the law is not the same as editing it.

## On the AP Exam

The line-item veto shows up in multiple-choice questions about formal presidential powers and their limits, often paired with Clinton v. City of New York as the case that killed it. A classic MCQ trap lists it among presidential powers to see if you know the president doesn't actually have it. Practice questions in this area also test related veto mechanics, like the constitutional questions around vetoes addressed in Wright v. United States (1938). No released FRQ uses the term verbatim, but it's strong evidence for an Argument Essay or SCOTUS-comparison FRQ about separation of powers, checks and balances, or the limits of executive power. The move you need to make is simple. Name the 1996 act, name the 1998 case, and explain that the presentment process in Article I requires the president to accept or reject bills whole.

## line-item veto vs Regular veto

The regular veto is a formal, constitutional power. The president rejects an entire bill, and Congress can override with a 2/3 vote in both chambers. The line-item veto would have let the president cancel specific spending provisions while signing the rest, but the Supreme Court ruled in Clinton v. City of New York (1998) that the federal president cannot do this. If the question is about a power the president actually has today, the answer is the regular veto (or pocket veto), never the line-item veto.

## Key Takeaways

- A line-item veto allows an executive to cancel specific spending provisions in a bill while signing the rest into law.
- Congress gave the president this power in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, but the Supreme Court struck it down in Clinton v. City of New York (1998).
- The Court ruled it violated the presentment process in Article I, which requires the president to sign or veto bills in their entirety.
- The federal president does not have a line-item veto today, though many state governors do under their state constitutions.
- The president's actual formal checks on Congress are the regular veto, which Congress can override with a 2/3 vote, and the pocket veto, which cannot be overridden.
- Use this case as evidence that separation of powers limits even powers that Congress voluntarily tries to hand to the president.

## FAQs

### What is the line-item veto in AP Gov?

It's the power to cancel specific spending items in a bill while signing the rest into law. Congress gave it to the president in 1996, but the Supreme Court struck it down in Clinton v. City of New York (1998) as unconstitutional.

### Does the president have a line-item veto?

No. The federal president lost it when the Supreme Court ruled the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York (1998). Many state governors still have one under their state constitutions, but the president must sign or veto federal bills whole.

### How is a line-item veto different from a regular veto?

A regular veto rejects an entire bill, and Congress can override it with a 2/3 vote in both chambers. A line-item veto would cancel only specific provisions while keeping the rest of the law, which is exactly what the Constitution's presentment process doesn't allow at the federal level.

### Why was the line-item veto ruled unconstitutional?

In Clinton v. City of New York (1998), the Court held it violated the presentment process in Article I, which requires bills to be accepted or rejected as a whole. Letting the president delete parts of a passed bill effectively let one person rewrite legislation, undermining separation of powers.

### Is the line-item veto a formal power of the president?

No. The CED lists the regular veto and pocket veto as the president's formal veto powers. The line-item veto is the textbook example of a power the president does not have, which makes it a favorite wrong-answer choice on multiple-choice questions.

## Related Study Guides

- [2.4 Roles and Power of the President](/ap-gov/unit-2/roles-power-president/study-guide/KcDjpoM3Ni4qA4Y3Um4K)

## Structured Data

```json
{"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"LearningResource","@id":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/key-terms/line-item-veto#resource","name":"Line-Item Veto — AP Gov Definition & Exam Guide","url":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/key-terms/line-item-veto","learningResourceType":"Concept explainer","educationalLevel":"AP® / High School","about":{"@id":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/key-terms/line-item-veto#term"},"audience":{"@type":"EducationalAudience","educationalRole":"student"},"dateModified":"2026-06-11T05:53:08.177Z","isPartOf":{"@type":"Collection","name":"AP US Government Key Terms","url":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/key-terms"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Fiveable","url":"https://fiveable.me"}},{"@type":"DefinedTerm","@id":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/key-terms/line-item-veto#term","name":"line-item veto","description":"The line-item veto is the power to cancel specific spending provisions in a bill while signing the rest into law; Congress gave it to the president in 1996, but the Supreme Court struck it down in Clinton v. City of New York (1998) as a violation of the Constitution's presentment process.","url":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/key-terms/line-item-veto","inDefinedTermSet":{"@type":"DefinedTermSet","name":"AP US Government Key Terms","url":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/key-terms"}},{"@type":"FAQPage","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":"What is the line-item veto in AP Gov?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"It's the power to cancel specific spending items in a bill while signing the rest into law. Congress gave it to the president in 1996, but the Supreme Court struck it down in Clinton v. City of New York (1998) as unconstitutional."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Does the president have a line-item veto?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"No. The federal president lost it when the Supreme Court ruled the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York (1998). Many state governors still have one under their state constitutions, but the president must sign or veto federal bills whole."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"How is a line-item veto different from a regular veto?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"A regular veto rejects an entire bill, and Congress can override it with a 2/3 vote in both chambers. A line-item veto would cancel only specific provisions while keeping the rest of the law, which is exactly what the Constitution's presentment process doesn't allow at the federal level."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Why was the line-item veto ruled unconstitutional?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"In Clinton v. City of New York (1998), the Court held it violated the presentment process in Article I, which requires bills to be accepted or rejected as a whole. Letting the president delete parts of a passed bill effectively let one person rewrite legislation, undermining separation of powers."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Is the line-item veto a formal power of the president?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"No. The CED lists the regular veto and pocket veto as the president's formal veto powers. The line-item veto is the textbook example of a power the president does not have, which makes it a favorite wrong-answer choice on multiple-choice questions."}}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"AP US Government","item":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Key Terms","item":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/key-terms"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Unit 2","item":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/unit-2"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"line-item veto"}]}]}
```