Pocket Veto Case

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Pocket Veto Case
L. Ed. 894
Case history
PriorUnited States Court of Claims found petitioner's suit to be without legal foundation.
Holding
The pocket veto used by President Coolidge was constitutional and valid; the pocket veto was upheld.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William H. Taft
Associate Justices
Case opinion
MajoritySanford, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Article One of the United States Constitution

The Pocket Veto Case (also known as Bands of the State of Washington v. United States and Okanogan, Methow, San Poelis, Nespelem, Colville, and Lake Indian Tribes v. United States), 279 U.S. 655 (1929), was a 1929

US Constitution's provisions on the pocket veto
.

Background

The

US Constitution
states that a bill that the President has not signed and not vetoed becomes law ten days (not including Sundays) after being sent to the President "unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."

The action of the President allowing a bill to expire without signing it after the adjournment of Congress is known as a pocket veto, which had been used by Presidents since James Madison.

In 1926, the

US Congress passed Senate Bill 3185, allowing American Indians in Washington State to sue for damages from the loss of their tribal lands. On June 24, 1926, the bill was sent to President Calvin Coolidge
for him to sign or veto. Congress adjourned for the summer on July 3. After July 6, the tenth day after the bill's passage, it had received neither a presidential signature nor a veto.

Several Indian tribes (the

argued that the pocket veto was a long-established practice that had been used to decide many important cases. The case was argued on March 11, 1929 and was decided on May 27.

The case hinged on the definition of "adjournment" in Article I.

Decision

In a 9–0 decision, the Court affirmed the lower court's ruling in a decision written by Justice Edward Terry Sanford. It noted that adjournment should be interpreted broadly to mean any cessation of congressional legislative activity.

The court revisited the issue of pocket vetoes in Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938).

See also

External links