*1 THE OF UNITED ARCHIVIST BURKE, ACTING v. BARNES STATES, et al. et al. January Argued 1986 Decided
No. 85-781. November Court, Bren- opinion in which Rehnquist, J., of the delivered C. O’Connor, JJ., joined. Blackmun, Powell, Ste- nan, Marshall, White, J., joined, post, vens, J., dissenting opinion, in which filed a of the Scalia, J., consideration or decision part no p. 365. the cause for argued Assistant General Willard Attorney General him on the were Solicitor With briefs petitioners. Kuhl, Kneedler, Edwin S. Fried, Solicitor General Deputy Ranter. and William
Morgan argued respondents. J. Frankel the cause for him Barnes et al. Mi With on the brief were *2 Kennedy, Davidson, Edward M. and Michael Ratner. chael Murray Ross, L. Charles and Michael filed Tiefer, Steven respondents Speaker of the United brief States House * Representatives et al. of opinion delivered the of the Rehnquist Chief Justice Court. Representatives passed
Both the
of
and the
House
Senate
(1983),
Cong.,
conditioning
H. R.
98th
1st
bill,
Sess.
military
El
the continuance United States
aid to
Salvador
upon the President’s semiannual
El
certification of Salvador’s
progress
rights.
in
human
The President neither
signed
Represent-
it
the bill nor returned
to the House of
originated,
position
atives where it had
and took the
that be-
Congress
adjourned
in
cause
had
the meantime
at the end of
subjected
“pocket
its first session the bill had been
to a
veto”
under Article
cl.
of the United
I, 7,
States Constitution.
Respondents-plaintiffs in this action are 33 individual
Representatives
Members of the House of
who filed suit
challenging
in the District Court
the action of the Presi-
seeking
“pocket-veto”
question.
dent in
the bill
The
Speaker
Bipartisan Leadership Group
Senate and
Representatives
support
of the House of
intervened in
plaintiffs
respondents
and are also
here. The District
granted summary judgment
petitioners-
Court
in favor of
(DC
Supp.
1984),
defendants,
Carmen,
Barnes v.
F.
Appeals
Kline,
but divided Court of
reversed. Barnes v.
App.
majority
D. C.
*David and Alan B. Morrison C. Vladeck filed a brief for Senator John Meleher et al. as amici curiae. Burke, maintain the action. Petitioners Frank G.
Acting States, Geisler, Archivist of the United and Ronald House, Executive Clerk of the White contend this Court (a) respondents action, lacked to maintain the (b) Appeals construing was incorrect Court (c) did, of the Constitution as it “Pocket Veto” Clause agree petition- with this final contention of case is moot. We that the case is moot. We therefore do ers, and hold not petitioners. of the other contentions of reach either question expired terms on The bill its own Appeals a few weeks after the entered its 30, 1984, Court requires judgment. III Article of the Constitution controversy case or at the time that a federal there be a live enough it is not that there have case; court decides *3 controversy by or when the case was decided been a live case judgment reviewing. whose we are Sosna v. the court (1975); Zwickler, v. 394 Iowa, 393, 419 U. S. 402 Golden analyze if this case as 103, 108 We therefore U. S. sought litigate validity originally to the of a by already expired. In its terms had statute which Dif Baptist Miami, Inc., Florida, v. Central Church of fenderfer (1972) curiam), (per 412 we stated: 404 U. S. complaint only sought in the was a declar- “The relief atory judgment repealed Fla. Stat. 192.06 that the now (4) parking applied to a church lot is unconstitutional as injunction against purposes commercial and an used for inap- application is, course, relief its to said lot. This repealed.” propriate Id., now that the statute has been at 414-415. validity challenge to the of a stat- see no reason to treat
We any differently challenge expired from a to the that has ute validity accordingly repealed, that has been and of a statute concerning any 4042 whether H. R. became issues hold by expired its own terms. that bill were mooted when law any present effect does not de- of the bill to have The failure any pend action was to whether the President’s decision as on 364 the its own terms became a dead let- veto”; by bill “pocket of whether it had regardless pre-
ter on Beals, also Hall v. law been enacted into not. See viously .or curiam). (per (1969) 48 in the it case keep contend other issues Respondents a live moot. first that there remains They from assert being publish over the failure Burke to controversy petitioner law, in the at as a enacted Large duly H. R. 4042 Statutes §§ of 1 U. S. C. 106a and accordance with the provisions (1982 III). inaction, This ed., Supp. respondents cryptically their caused the “nullification of claim, lawmaking proc Brief and Respondents Speaker Bipartisan esses.” 50. fail how interest any We to see Leadership Group that might be served “lawmaking process” publication can life of enacted statutes survive the the statutes duly themselves.* claim that on aid expended military also funds
Respondents at the certification H. required by might without date under recovery some future be subject provisions §§ 3521. laws relate 1341, 1349-1351, 31 U. S. C. These account settlement of Government auditing expen- But we think this ditures General. Comptroller likewise fails to show that there is contro- a live argument here. There is no indication of a versy presently existing if as to such a accounting obligations, dispute dispute it were to arise would not be between the to this parties *4 no basis our contingencies afford for speculative pass- “[S]uch the issues have us de- on substantive would [respondents] reject respondents’ argument questions and that the of mootness *We arguendo, assume, necessarily are intertwined. can that a We Congress judicially cognizable injury the votes it House of suffers a when by pass to an otherwise live statute have been nullified action on has cast injury in part the Branch. But this “the nullification of the of Executive processes,” Respondents Speaker Brief and Bi- [Congress’] lawmaking for 50, longer partisan Leadership Group no when the statute exists claimed to be effective its own terms. has ceased now-expired provisions respect of H. R. to the”
cide with supra, at Beals, 49-50. Hall v. 4042. Appeals judgment vacated, is therefore the Court to that court with instructions to case is remanded
and the case District Court with instructions to the to the remand Munsingwear, complaint. Inc., the United States v. dismiss 36,
It is so ordered. alia or no the consideration deci- part Justice Sc sion of this White Stevens, joins, with whom Justice
Justice dissenting. my opinion not The United States
In this case is moot. Bipartisan Group Leadership and the of the House of Senate Representatives obtaining
retain the same sort of interest they September ruling prior 30, did to on the merits as a Cong., 98th 1st 4042, Prior to that date H. Sess. 1984. (1983), it had been killed was either a “dead letter” because pocket a the Pres veto, or it was valid law because valid attempt If R. 4042 to it was ineffective. H. was ident’s veto duty petitioners publish it in the had to Stat law, a valid duty Large had a States; of the United the Executive utes at period military during El aid to Salvador to discontinue January 1984, unless between progressing certify El that Salvador was President could Secretary duty rights; had a human State military Congress any report aid amount of to to during period provided of the terms of violation been according Comptroller had, General 4042; and the H. R. any duty recover have,* still unlawfully allocated. that were amounts pocket veto was argue a court decision that *Respondents funds from official or in the return ‘some might still result invalid authority. See Brief legal without made disbursements officials who *5 366 question course, a serious whether the is,
There Senate group Congressmen and a of 33 have the United States litigation. in if to enforce those duties this But we does, ante, 364, n., the Court at and as we assume—as should purposes analyzing Legis- the mootness issue—that the product interest in lature’s its work from nullifica- support tion Executive would have been sufficient to standing prior September that interest is also support standing today. long question sufficient to As as the whether H. R. 4042 ever became a law continues to have practical significance, Congress its retains interest ensur- given proper legal that its enactments are their effect. congressional finding out Ex- interest whether the illegally distributing foreign ecutive has acted funds to surely period during sovereigns prohi- survives the which the expenditures Arguably was in bition on effect. that interest pursued congressional investigations should be committee litigation. rather than But if assume we that the federal proper courthouse was forum for resolution of the issues complaint prior tendered this 30, 1984, it re- today. mains so case, Whatever else be said about this it is not moot. Respondents Barnes and (discussing United States Senate 33-36 §§3523-3525). 1341(a)(1);
U. S. C. U. S. C.