• Free Speech & Social Media
      • Privacy & Surveillance
      • Transparency & Democracy
    • Litigation
    • Research
    • Policy
      • Events
      • Reading Rooms
      • Blog
      • Video
      • Podcasts
      • The Knight Institute
      • Board
      • Staff
      • Visiting Scholars
      • Work With Us
      • Support Us
      • Contact
      • Press Room

Reading Room Document

Use of the "Pocket Veto" During Intersession Adjournments of Congress

Under the Constitution, the President has the power to veto an enrolled bill by "retum[ing] it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated" within ten days of the bill's being presented to the President. If, however, "the Congress by their Adjournment prevent [a bill's] Return" from the President, he may veto the bill simply by failing to sign it (i.e., by "putting it in his pocket"). Congress may not override a pocket veto of a bill by a two-thirds vote of both Houses. Rather, the bill must be reintroduced and repassed by both Houses and resubmitted to the President for his approval or veto. The Supreme Court has held that Congress' appointment of an officer or agent to receive returned bills from the President during an intersession adjournment does not preclude the President from exercising a pocket veto. The Court has also held, however, that an ordinary "return veto" was valid when the President returned a bill to the Secretary of the Senate while that House was in an intrasession adjournment of three days or less. Despite lower court decisions questioning the continued validity of the Supreme Court's reasoning, use of the pocket veto during intersession adjournments remains valid, whatever steps Congress may take to receive returned bills during such and adjournment. The Supreme Court has not decided whether the pocket veto can be exercised when one House, but not the other, has adjourned sine die or for an intersession recess. Nor has that Court decided whether the pocket veto can be used during intrasession adjournments lasting longer than three days. The OLC does not provide release dates for its opinions, so the release date listed is the date on which the opinion was authored. The original opinion is available at www.justice.gov/file/23566/download.

December 19, 1983

The OLC's Opinions

Opinions published by the OLC, including those released in response to our FOIA lawsuit

Issues

Free Speech & Social Media

Free Speech & Social Media

Featured

Knight Institute Says Visa Revocations Over Charlie Kirk Criticism Are Unconstitutional

     

Privacy & Surveillance

Privacy & Surveillance

Featured

Appeals Court Revives Journalists’ Case Against Spyware Manufacturer NSO Group

Spyware manufacturers should be held accountable in U.S. courts for actions violating U.S. law, Knight Institute says

Transparency & Democracy

Transparency & Democracy

Featured

Knight Institute Seeks Immediate Release of Trump Administration Agreements with Major Law Firms

 Says records are key to public’s understanding of administration’s vindictive campaign against political opponents

Events

The Science of Chilling Effects

Online

The Science of Chilling Effects

Learn More

Sign up for news about First Amendment events, research, and litigation

  • Issues

    • Free Speech & Social Media
    • Privacy & Surveillance
    • Transparency & Democracy
  • Litigation
  • Research
  • Policy
  • Public Education

    • Events
    • Reading Rooms
    • Blog
    • Video
    • Podcasts
  • About
  • Press Room
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy

© 2021 Knight First Amendment Institute. Design by Point Five. Development by Tierra Innovation. Icons by Leandro Castelao.

2020 Webby Award Winner for Law Website