In Burke, Acting Archivist of the United States, et al. v. Barnes et al., 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that a pocket veto used by President Jimmy Carter was valid and thus prevented a bill from becoming law. The case arose when Congress passed a bill but adjourned before presenting it to the president for his signature or veto within ten days (excluding Sundays) as required by Article I Section 7 of the Constitution. President Carter issued a memorandum stating he would not sign it into law due to this adjournment - effectively using what is known as "pocket veto". A group led by Congressman Michael D. Barnes sued arguing that since only one house had adjourned sine die (without assigning another day for meeting), there was no final adjournment preventing return of bills under Article I Section 7 and hence no pocket veto should be allowed in such cases. The court held that once an intersession congressional recess occurs after presentation of a bill to the president and before he signs it into law or returns with objections, then irrespective whether one house remains in session during such recess or not, if both houses are unavailable to receive presidential messages then they have effectively prevented him from returning any presented legislation thereby enabling use of pocket vetos.

In the dissenting opinion for Burke, Acting Archivist of the United States, et al. v. Barnes et al., Justice White argued that the case was not moot and should be decided on its merits. He contended that even though President Carter's pocket veto of a bill had expired with his term in office, there remained a live controversy because Congress could reenact similar legislation in future sessions which could again face a pocket veto by any sitting president. Therefore, he believed it was important to resolve whether or not such vetoes were constitutional under Article I Section 7 of the Constitution - an issue left undecided by this ruling due to majority’s decision on mootness grounds.