I am well aware that I know so little of the subject that I may sound like an idiot even asking.
So it’s my understanding that if a bill is put on the president’s desk he has 10 days to sign or to veto. If he doesn’t sign or veto it becomes law at the end of those 10 days. The exception is if Congress is not in session then the bill does not become law and it’s considered a pocket veto.
It’s also my understanding that congress generally doesn’t go into full recess. Every few days a senator will open a session and close it.
My question is this. A bill gets put on the President’s desk now after the final session prior to the holidays. There is no break of more than 10 days. But on the 10th day a new Congress is sworn in. If the president waits until the old Congress that voted on the bill is gone does that still count as a pocket veto? Would the old bill voted on by the previous Congress become law if the president fails to sign or veto?
Such a case would go to the Supreme Court, where they would have a difficult decision to make. (Legally difficult: a partisan court has no obstacles.)
In the past the Court has ruled ambiguously on the nature of the pocket veto.
Courts have never fully clarified when an adjournment by Congress would “prevent” the president from returning a vetoed bill. Some presidents have interpreted the Constitution to restrict the pocket veto to the adjournment sine die of Congress at the end of the second session of the two-year congressional term, while others interpreted it to allow intersession and intrasession pocket vetoes. In 1929, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the Pocket Veto Case that a bill had to be returned to the chamber while it is in session and capable of work. While upholding President Calvin Coolidge’s pocket veto, the court said that the “determinative question is not whether it is a final adjournment of Congress or an interim adjournment but whether it is one that ‘prevents’ the President from returning the bill”. In 1938, the Supreme Court reversed itself in part in Wright v. United States ruling that Congress could designate agents on its behalf to receive veto messages when it was not in session, saying that the Constitution “does not define what shall constitute a return of a bill or deny the use of appropriate agencies in effecting the return”. A three-day recess of the Senate was considered a short enough time that the Senate could still act with “reasonable promptitude” on the veto. However, a five-month adjournment would be a long enough period to enable a pocket veto. Within those constraints, there still exists some ambiguity.
My gut tells me that a new Congress needs to vote a new time on the bill, mostly because the 1929 ruling seems clear while the 1938 ruling is incomprehensible. Needless to say, my gut has not been to law school.
Like every speculative question on our government with no precedent, the answer is going to default to “we’ll see.”
The question is supposed to be broad but I was asking because of the current HR82 which is waiting on a signature. Biden gave indications that he will sign it but as a lame duck he has no repercussions for changing his mind.
W did a pocket veto in 2007. The thing about them is that they can’t be overridden. The bill was sent to him with a veto proof majority so he did the maneuver. The was some chatter that it wasn’t a true pocket veto but they didn’t really fight it. They removed a provision that he didn’t like and passed the revised version which he signed. (Link goes to the specific case)
If I read the case NRLB v Canning correctly, in order to be in pro-forma session and not a recess, the Senate must be able to conduct business. So then what happens if the President returns it on the 10th day and Congress cannot act for lack of a quorum the rest of the session? I’d say the veto is good because it’s not the President’s fault the Senate plays such games.
So what’s the effect? I presume all that a pocket veto would do is add delay by making the bill get passed all over again in the next/new session. And, if it had a veto-overriding majority anyway, it should have no problem in the next session?
Wait! He hasn’t? I assumed that would be a done deal. All of my teacher friends and all of my wife guv’ment cow-orkers are celebrating. Guess we need to wait until Dec 31st and thank pro-forma sessions for a change.
The page I follow about the efforts to enact this legislation said it went to the president’s desk this afternoon. Probably it would be more accurate to say it went to his inbox.
It was reported from the beginning that Biden will sign it. I wasn’t specifically asking about this bill. It just made me think of the question. Now I’m seeing he will be signing it on January 6th. Now I’m confused. The new Congress gets sworn in on January 3rd. I thought it had to be signed before the new Congress.
Why? If he signs it Congress isn’t involved at all.
The more interesting question would be if he doesn’t sign it and 10 days later (excepting Sundays) it is a new session of Congress, is it a law or a pocket veto? According to this it is a pocket veto. Oh and that same resource explicitly answers your question
However, a President wishing to approve a bill is not required to sign it on a day when Congress is in session. He may sign within ten days (other than Sundays) after the bill is presented to him, even if that period extends beyond the date of Congress’s adjournment.