Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
Pressler, Member, U. S. House of Representatives v. Blumenthal, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.
434 U.S. 1028·Supreme Court of the United States·1978
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 77-450.
Pressler, Member, U. S. House of Representatives v. Blumenthal, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal from D. C. D. C. Motion of James M. Jef-fords et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Judgment affirmed.
[CONCURRENCE — Mr. Justice Rehnquist,]
Mr. Justice Rehnquist,
concurring.
In joining the summary affirmance of the judgment of the District Court in this case, I think it important to point out that such affirmance does not necessarily reflect this Court’s agreement with the conclusion reached by the District Court on the merits of the Ascertainment Clause question. The District Court decided that appellant did have standing to litigate this issue by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Congress, but decided the issue against him on the merits. Our “unexplicated affirmance” without opinion could rest as readily on our conclusion that appellant lacked standing to litigate the merits of the question as it could on agreement with the District Court’s resolution of the merits of the question.