Pressler, Member, U. S. House of Representatives v. Blumenthal, Secretary of the Treasury, Et Al.

1978-01-16

Headline: Member of Congress’s challenge to a constitutional 'Ascertainment Clause' is rejected as the Court affirms the lower court’s judgment, leaving the earlier ruling intact while noting unresolved standing questions.

Holding:

Real World Impact:

Leaves the District Court’s judgment in place; Member’s challenge failed.
Creates uncertainty whether similar constitutional challenges by Members of Congress will proceed.
No full Supreme Court opinion explaining the constitutional issue, so legal clarity is lacking.

Topics: constitutional requirement, ability to sue, Congressional lawsuits, Treasury policy

Summary

Background

A Member of Congress brought a challenge against the Treasury Secretary and other officials raising a constitutional question labeled the Ascertainment Clause. The District Court concluded the Member had standing because he was a Member of Congress but ruled against him on the constitutional question. The Supreme Court granted a motion to allow outside parties to file a brief in the case and then affirmed the District Court’s judgment without issuing a full written opinion.

Reasoning

The core issue for the Justices was whether to accept the District Court’s resolution of the constitutional question or to leave the judgment for some other reason. The Court issued an unexplained summary affirmance without a full opinion. One Justice joined the affirmance but emphasized that the lack of an opinion means the Court’s action should not be read necessarily as agreement with the lower court’s reasoning and that the affirmance could rest on the Member’s lack of the right to bring the case.

Real world impact

The practical result is that the District Court’s decision stands and the Member’s challenge failed. Because the Supreme Court gave no full explanation, it leaves uncertainty about whether similar constitutional challenges by Members of Congress will be allowed or barred. The underlying constitutional question remains unresolved until a full opinion addresses it.

Dissents or concurrances

One Justice issued a brief concurrence noting that the Court’s unexplained affirmance does not necessarily accept the lower court’s merits decision and could instead rest on standing concerns.