Also known as: one house veto · one-house vetoes · legislative veto
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A legislative mechanism by which one chamber of Congress purports to nullify an executive or agency decision without passage by the other chamber or presentment to the President. The mechanism alters the legal rights or duties of persons outside the legislative branch and therefore constitutes an exercise of legislative power. Any such exercise must satisfy the bicameralism and presentment requirements of Article I.
Jagdish Chadha obtained an INS suspension of deportation. The House of Representatives then passed a single-chamber resolution that immediately nullified the suspension under a statute authorizing one-house veto. Chadha sued, arguing that the resolution changed his legal status without bicameral passage or presentment to the President.
A federal judge challenged Senate procedures during his impeachment trial. The Senate claimed sole authority under the Impeachment Trial Clause to conduct the proceeding without judicial interference. The judge argued that the Senate's unilateral actions exceeded constitutional bounds in ways analogous to other one-house exercises of power.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Former President Nixon sought to block an executive agreement allowing congressional review of his papers. Congress had inserted a provision permitting one house to disapprove the arrangement. Nixon contended that the one-house disapproval altered executive rights without satisfying bicameralism and presentment.
The Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority approved runway changes opposed by local residents. A review board composed of members of Congress exercised veto power over the decision under a statute granting one-house control. The residents challenged the board's action as an unconstitutional legislative veto that bypassed required procedures.
Eldred challenged a statute extending copyright terms that included a one-house mechanism for future adjustments. The extension altered existing rights of publishers and authors. Eldred argued that any later one-house modification would violate bicameralism and presentment.
The NLRB made appointments during a Senate recess that a company challenged as invalid. A statute allowed one house to nullify certain recess actions by resolution. The company contended that the one-house nullification device itself failed constitutional requirements for altering executive authority.
A one-house veto constitutes an exercise of legislative power because it alters the legal rights or duties of persons outside Congress. The Constitution requires that any such exercise satisfy bicameral passage and presentment to the President. A single chamber acting alone bypasses both requirements.
Supporting sources
No. The original enactment satisfies bicameralism and presentment, but the later one-house action is a separate exercise of legislative power. That later action must itself comply with Article I procedures regardless of the earlier statute.
Supporting sources
Oversight includes hearings, investigations, and nonbinding expressions of view. A one-house veto binds private parties by changing their legal rights or duties and therefore functions as legislation. Only actions that satisfy bicameralism and presentment may produce binding changes.
Supporting sources
Yes. Action after an agency has granted rights or approvals directly alters vested legal relations of private parties. That post-approval change requires full legislative process rather than a unilateral resolution.
Supporting sources
…in purpose and effect, and thus was subject to the procedural requirements of Art. I, § 7, for legislative action. (c) The legislative veto is an invalid shortcut. It is not a valid exception to the general rule that Congress may not delegate lawmaking power to itself or one of its Houses. Majority opinion Opinion of…