Wright v. United States

Wright v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 1, 1937 Decided January 17, 1938
Full case name	Wright v. United States
Citations	302 U.S. 583 ( more )
Holding
The recess of a single chamber under Article I, Section 5, is not an adjournment for the purposes of a pocket veto.
Court membership
Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes Associate Justices James C. McReynolds  · Louis Brandeis Pierce Butler  · Harlan F. Stone Owen Roberts  · Benjamin N. Cardozo Hugo Black
Case opinions
Majority	Hughes, joined by McReynolds, Butler, Roberts, Black
Concur/dissent	Stone, joined by Brandeis
Cardozo took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Presentment Clause

Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583(1938), was a United States Supreme Court case that clarified what qualifies as an adjournment for determining whether a veto is as a pocket veto and therefore unable to be overriden. The Court held that the recess of a single chamber under Article I, Section 5, is not an adjournment. ^{[1] [2]}

Unlike the Pocket Veto Case, Wright v. United States concerns situations where a single chamber of Congress has entered recess, as opposed to the adjournment of the full Congress. ^[3]

Background

In 1936, Congress passed a private bill which originated in the Senate. The President vetoed the bill and returned it on the final day permitted by the Constitution. The Senate was in recess, but the Secretary of the Senate received the bill and objections. The House was not in session, and no further action was taken. ^[4]

The bill granted jurisdiction to the Court of Claims to rehear Wright's petition against the United States. Despite the bill having been vetoed, Wright presented his petition on September 14, 1936. The government opposed the petition on the grounds that the bill had not been passed, and the court denied it. ^[2]

Wright appealed, and the Supreme Court granted review. ^[2]

Opinion of the court

The Court unanimously held that the bill had been properly vetoed and was therefore invalid. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Charles Hughes based his decision on the idea that delivery of the bill and objections to an appropriate officer of the House of origin was sufficient for the purposes of deciding whether the bill had been vetoed. Furthermore, the majority interpreted 'adjournment' as requiring the recess of both Houses. ^{[4] [1]}

Dissenting Opinion

Justice Stone dissented in part, arguing that the recess of the Senate should have been considered an adjournment. He reasoned that a bill could not be returned to a House not in session, and that officers were not authorized to receive the President's objections. ^[4]

References

1. Miller, Arthur (April 1972). "Congressional Power to Define the Presidential Pocket Veto Power". Vanderbilt Law Review. 25 (3): 561. Retrieved January 6, 2026.
2. Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938).
3. Maclean, Angus. "Whether a Three-Day Recess by One Chamber of Congress Constitutes an Adjournment for Purposes of the Pocket Veto Clause". United States Department of Justice. Retrieved January 6, 2026.
4. Fraenkel, Osmond (November 1938). "CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES IN THE SUPREME COURT, 1937 TERM". University of Pennsylvania Law Review: 83–84. Retrieved January 6, 2026.

External links

• Text of Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583(1938) is available from: Justia

This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain .