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-
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 Representativesv.
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.
