Wright v. United States
Headline: Short Senate recess doesn’t force a bill into law: Court ruled a president may return a vetoed bill to a chamber’s secretary during a brief recess, blocking the bill from becoming law.
Holding: The Court held that when Congress as a whole did not adjourn and one chamber took a short recess, the President’s delivery of a vetoed bill to that chamber’s secretary was a valid return, so the bill did not become law.
- Allows Presidents to return vetoed bills to a chamber’s officer during short recesses.
- Prevents such bills from automatically becoming law when Congress has not adjourned.
- Changes how Congress and the President record and reconsider veto messages.
Summary
Background
A bill that would let the Court of Claims rehear a private claim was passed by both Houses and sent to the President on April 24, 1936. The Senate recessed from May 4 to noon May 7 while the House stayed in session. The President returned the bill with objections on May 5 and delivered it to the Secretary of the Senate. When the Senate reconvened on May 7 the Secretary presented the message and the bill was referred to committee. The claimant then sued, the Court of Claims denied relief, and the Supreme Court agreed to decide the legal question.
Reasoning
The Court focused on the Constitution’s ten-day rule and the phrase "unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return." It held that "the Congress" means both Houses and that a short recess by one chamber during a session is not an adjournment of Congress. The Court said delivery to the Senate’s Secretary during that brief recess was an effective return and distinguished earlier "pocket veto" law where Congress had adjourned. On those grounds the Court concluded the bill had been properly returned and therefore did not become law.
Real world impact
The decision clarifies that when Congress as a whole has not adjourned, a President can return a vetoed bill during a short chamber recess by delivering it to the chamber’s appropriate officer, and the bill will not automatically become law. The ruling affects how Presidents and Congress handle veto messages and short recesses and preserves the opportunity for reconsideration.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stone agreed the bill failed but disagreed with the Court’s reasoning, arguing the Senate’s adjournment prevented return and warning the majority’s rule creates uncertainty about the veto power.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?