Last term, the Court dismissed a challenge to the Line Item Veto Act in Raines v. Byrd, 117 S.Ct. 2312 (1997), holding that various members of Congress did not have standing to challenge the Act. In late February, the Court granted certiorari in City of New York v. Clinton, --- F. Supp. --- (D.D.C. 1998), and scheduled argument for April 27. This time the standing problem has been cured, and Judge Hogan in the district court reached the same conclusion as Judge Jackson did in Raines -- the Act is unconstitutional. In short, the court said that the "veto" violated Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution, by authorizing the President to change laws without going through bicameralism and presentment. In addition, the court said the Act violated the Separation of Powers by unconstitutionally delegating legislative powers to the President. So far, it is 3-0 on the constitutionality of the Act -- Judges Hogan and Jackson, as well as Justice Stevens, who parted ways with other members of the Court by opining on the merits.

The Court has also granted certiorari in the cases of Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC, 120 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 1997), and California v. FCC, 124 F.3d 934 (8th Cir. 1997), in which the Eighth Circuit invalidated a number of regulatory provisions related to local telephone exchange carriers, which were adopted by the Federal Communications Commission pursuant to the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

In addition, the Court granted certiorari in Forney v. Chater, 108 F.3d 228 (9th Cir. 1997), involving the question whether a Social Security Disability applicant can appeal a district court's decisions adverse to his claim when the court finds in his favor on one point and remands the case back to the agency for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit held he could not, because generally a person cannot appeal rulings in his favor, but this conflicts with a decision by the Tenth Circuit in Nguyen v. Shalala, 43 F.3d 1400 (1994).