PRESSLER v. BLUMENTHAL, 434 U.S. 1028 (1978)

U.S. Supreme Court

PRESSLER v. BLUMENTHAL , 434 U.S. 1028 (1978)

434 U.S. 1028

Larry PRESSLER, Member, United States House of Representatives
v.
W. M. BLUMENTHAL, Secretary of the Treasury, et al
No. 77-450

Supreme Court of the United States

January 16, 1978

The motion of James M. Jeffords et al. for leave to file a brief, as amici curiae, is granted.

The judgment is affirmed.

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 ques-

Page 434 U.S. 1028 , 1029

tion. 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.


U.S. Supreme Court

PRESSLER v. BLUMENTHAL , 434 U.S. 1028 (1978)

 434 U.S. 1028

Larry PRESSLER, Member, United States House of Representatives
v.
W. M. BLUMENTHAL, Secretary of the Treasury, et al
No. 77-450

Supreme Court of the United States

January 16, 1978

The motion of James M. Jeffords et al. for leave to file a brief, as amici curiae, is granted.

The judgment is affirmed.

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 ques-

Page 434 U.S. 1028 , 1029

tion. 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.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.