Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Pocket Veto Case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1929 United States Supreme Court case
Pocket Veto Case
Argued March 11, 1929
Decided May 27, 1929
Full case nameOkanogan, Methow, San Poelis, Nespelem, Colville, and Lake Indian Tribes v. US
Citations279U.S.655 (more)
49 S. Ct. 463; 73L. Ed. 894
Case history
PriorUnited States Court of Claims found petitioner's suit to be without legal foundation.
Holding
Thepocket veto used by President Coolidge was constitutional and valid; the pocket veto was upheld.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William H. Taft
Associate Justices
Oliver W. Holmes Jr. · Willis Van Devanter
James C. McReynolds · Louis Brandeis
George Sutherland · Pierce Butler
Edward T. Sanford · Harlan F. Stone
Case opinion
MajoritySanford, joined byunanimous
Laws applied
Presentment Clause

ThePocket Veto Case (also known asBands of the State of Washington v. United States andOkanogan, Methow, San Poelis, Nespelem, Colville, and Lake Indian Tribes v. United States), 279 U.S. 655 (1929), was a 1929United States Supreme Court decision that interpreted theUS Constitution's provisions on thepocket veto.

Background

[edit]

ThePresentment Clause ofArticle I of theUS 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 apocket veto, which had been used by Presidents sinceJames Madison.

In 1926, theUS Congress passed Senate Bill 3185, allowingAmerican Indians inWashington State to sue for damages from the loss of their tribal lands. On June 24, 1926, the bill was sent to PresidentCalvin 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 (theOkanogan,Methow,Sanpoil,Nespelem,Colville, and theLake Indian Tribes) filed suit in theUnited States Court of Claims, which ruled that their case had no legal merit. The Indian tribes appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. Arguing on behalf of the United States,US Attorney GeneralWilliam D. Mitchell 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

[edit]

In a 9–0 decision, the Court affirmed the lower court's ruling in a decision written by JusticeEdward 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 inWright v. United States, 302 U.S.583 (1938).

See also

[edit]

External links

[edit]
Presentment Clause of Section VII
Commerce Clause of Section VIII
Dormant Commerce Clause
Others
Coinage Clause of Section VIII
Legal Tender Cases
Copyright Clause of Section VIII
Copyright Act of 1790
Patent Act of 1793
Patent infringement case law
Patentability case law
Copyright Act of 1831
Copyright Act of 1870
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890
International Copyright Act of 1891
Copyright Act of 1909
Patent misuse case law
Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914
Lanham Act
Copyright Act of 1976
Othercopyright cases
Otherpatent cases
Othertrademark cases
Legal Tender Cases
Others
Compact Clause of Section X
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pocket_Veto_Case&oldid=1263307039"
Categories:
Hidden categories:

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp