What ever happened to the Nixon Pocket veto case?
<p>What ever happened to the Nixon Pocket veto case? This is the case where members of congress sued over President Nixon's recess veto of a spending bill.</p>

<p>The New York Times reported on the veto which I think that the question is referring to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1970/12/31/archives/nixon-accused-of-misusing-pocket-veto-plans-to-urge-reforms.html" rel="noreferrer">on December 31, 1970</a>.</p>

<p>The Congressional Research Service <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30909.pdf" rel="noreferrer">reported on the issue on March 30, 2001</a> and the pertinent part regarding the litigation over that pocket veto was as follows:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>President Richard Nixon, on December 24, 1970, exercised a pocket veto
  over the Family Practice of Medicine Bill. The bill had passed the
  Senate 64 to 1 and the House 346 to 2, providing what appeared to be
  overwhelming majorities for any veto that Nixon might exercise. Both
  chambers adjourned on December 22 for the Christmas holidays. The
  Senate returned on December 28 and the House the following day. Not
  counting December 27 (a Sunday), the Senate was absent for four days
  and the House for five.</p>
  
  <p>Unlike the 1929 case, Nixon’s action involved a short adjournment
  during a session rather than a lengthy adjournment at the end of a
  session. A district court held that the Christmas adjournment had not
  prevented Nixon from returning the bill to Congress as a regular veto.
  The bill therefore became law on December 25, 1970, 10 days after it
  had been presented to the President.</p>
  
  <p>When an appellate court upheld this decision the following year, it
  appeared that pocket vetoes would be impermissible during any
  intra-session adjournment. The D.C. Circuit ruled that an
  intra-session adjournment of Congress “does not prevent the President
  from returning a bill which he disapproves so long as appropriate
  arrangements are made for the receipt of presidential vetoes during
  the adjournment.” The Justice Department decided not to appeal this
  case to the Supreme Court. The bill was eventually printed as a public
  law (P.L. 91-696) and backdated to December 25, 1970, which marked the
  end of the 10-day period provided in the Constitution for executive
  review of bills.</p>
  
  <p>Because of the brief interval between the first and second sessions
  (which can be shorter than an intra-session adjournment),
  inter-session pocket vetoes also seemed suspect. Under this logic,
  pocket vetoes would be available only with final adjournment of a
  Congress at the end of the second session.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Department of Justice issued a memorandum formalizing its take on the meaning of the case <a href="https://www.justice.gov/file/22941/download" rel="noreferrer">in a February 10, 1982 memorandum</a>.</p>

<p>It looks like you're referring to <em>Kennedy v. Sampson</em>.</p>

<p>The DC District Court heard the case (<a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/364/1075/2259266/" rel="noreferrer">364 F. Supp 1075 (1973)</a>) and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff Sen. Edward Kennedy, holding that the veto was invalid and that the bill had become law.  </p>

<p>The case was appealed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals (<a href="https://casetext.com/case/kennedy-v-sampson" rel="noreferrer">511 F.2d 430 (1974)</a>), which affirmed.</p>

united-states president congress history separation-of-powers