Pocket veto?

Somebody with standing needs to sue.

Why, and to what purpose? Conceding for the sake of argument that such a case would have merit under the Pocket Veto Case (and SCOTUS was quite clear in that case that "adjournment" was to be construed broadly for the sake of the ruling, the bill originated in the House which HAS recessed, etc.) to do anything about it Congress would still have to take the bill back up. The White House memorandum is quite clear that the bill IS being vetoed in BOTH senses of veto.

The adjournment of the Congress has prevented my return of H.R. 1585 within the meaning of Article I, section 7, clause 2 of the Constitution. Accordingly, my withholding of approval from the bill precludes its becoming law. The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929). In addition to withholding my signature and thereby invoking my constitutional power to "pocket veto" bills during an adjournment of the Congress, I am also sending H.R. 1585 to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, along with this memorandum setting forth my objections, to avoid unnecessary litigation about the non-enactment of the bill that results from my withholding approval and to leave no doubt that the bill is being vetoed.

IOW, ignoring the Pocket Veto aspect does not change that the bill HAS been properly vetoed, and arguing the point about whether the pocket veto requirements have been fulfilled in every aspect is a technical argument in search of a purpose, as if the recess provisions are not sufficient then the usual remedies to override vetoes are directly to hand. If Congress is still "in session" Congress can make the issue moot by reconvening and overriding the veto. If Congress is not in session, the pocket veto applies.

Wright v. United States completely supports the double-barreled method of return employed in this case as being an effective veto. Justice Stone's dissent (in part, with Brandeis concurring) is also relevant. The ruling of the court in Wright was to sustain the ruling affirming the White House's veto, and Stone's dissent did not argue to change the direction of the ruling but to expand the ruling even farther to establish that Congress may not of its own actions create circumstances that effectively strip the President of veto power.

So as I said, it's an argument in search of a purpose in this case, as the bill was vetoed in both senses. If the House (where the bill originated) or Senate wants to claim that the bill can NOT be pocket vetoed on technical/definitional grounds they are still left with the actual veto, as they cannot make it impossible to return in order to strip the White House entirely of veto power. If they choose to claim the pocket veto is not applicable, they must deal with the substantive veto, and vice versa.

No loophole there. In either case, the bill HAS been vetoed, and the only question is about which veto applies, or has priority. There is thus no purpose to a suit.

(Yes, those are the two relevant cases to look at.)