Also known as: stands adjourned · stood adjourned · standing adjourned · adjourn
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A state of adjournment for a meeting or proceeding. This status is announced by a judge or other presiding officer to suspend business until a later time.
Spencer Silver, presiding over the Senate, announces that the body stands adjourned after the House refuses to agree on a date for ending the session. The President then exercises authority to set a new time for reconvening. The announcement halts all legislative business until the designated date arrives.
Simon Stern, the presiding judge at a military commission, declares that the tribunal stands adjourned pending resolution of a habeas petition. The adjournment pauses all witness examinations and evidentiary rulings. Proceedings resume only after the reviewing court issues its decision.
In October 1864 Lambdin P. Milligan, a citizen of Indiana who had lived in the state for twenty years and had never been in the military or naval service of the United States, was arrested at his home by order of General Alvin P. Hovey, commanding the military district of Indiana. He was charged with conspiracy against the United States, affording aid and comfort to rebels, inciting insurrection, disloyal practices, and violation of the laws of war. On October 21, 1864, Milligan was brought before a military commission convened at Indianapolis pursuant to orders from the President and the War Department; the commission found him guilty on all charges and sentenced him to death, a sentence approved by the President with execution first set for May 19, 1865, and later postponed. After the military proceedings ended, Milligan petitioned the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that the military commission lacked jurisdiction because he was a civilian citizen of a loyal state where the civil courts remained open and functioning. The petition stated that a grand jury had convened in the Circuit Court in January 1865, had been charged to inquire into violations of United States law, and had adjourned without indicting or presenting him; no indictment or presentment was ever returned against him. The petition was presented in open court on May 10, 1865, and the United States attorney appeared and submitted the application by agreement. The Circuit Court judges divided on three questions and certified them to the Supreme Court: whether a writ of habeas corpus ought to issue on the facts stated in the petition and exhibits, whether Milligan ought to be discharged from custody, and whether the military commission had jurisdiction to try and sentence him. The record filed with the certificate included the order convening the commission, the charges and specifications, the commission's findings and sentence, and the War Department order reciting presidential approval and directing execution. The Supreme Court heard argument from counsel for Milligan and for the United States on the certified questions.
View caseSean Steele, the trial judge in a disorderly conduct case, announces that the court stands adjourned after heated public argument disrupts the proceedings. The adjournment allows time for cooler deliberation on the constitutional claims. The parties reconvene the next day under restored order.
On February 7, 1946, Albert Terminiello delivered a speech in the auditorium of the West End Women's Club in Chicago to an audience of about eight hundred people under the auspices of the Christian Veterans of America. An overflow crowd of about one thousand persons gathered outside the auditorium to protest the meeting. The crowd was angry and turbulent, with many making threats against the speaker, shouting, and attempting to force their way into the building while the police proved unable to maintain order. Terminiello was arrested and charged under a Chicago ordinance making it unlawful to make any improper noise, riot, disturbance, breach of the peace, or diversion tending to a breach of the peace. At trial the court instructed the jury that misbehavior may constitute a breach of the peace if it stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty resulting in a fine of one hundred dollars. The Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court both affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the case.
View caseSasha Stone, counsel for the labor board, moves that the hearing stand adjourned while the validity of recess appointments is litigated. The presiding officer grants the motion and suspends all agency actions. The adjournment preserves the status quo until the Supreme Court resolves the constitutional issue.
Noel Canning is a Pepsi-Cola distributor that became involved in a labor dispute with a union. In 2011 the National Labor Relations Board found that Noel Canning had unlawfully refused to reduce to writing and execute a collective-bargaining agreement. The Board ordered the distributor to execute the agreement and to make employees whole for any losses. Noel Canning petitioned the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to set the Board's order aside. It claimed that three of the five Board members had been invalidly appointed, leaving the Board without a lawful quorum. The three members in question were Sharon Block, Richard Griffin, and Terence Flynn. In 2011 the President had nominated each of them to the Board, and as of January 2012 their nominations remained pending in the Senate. On December 17, 2011, the Senate by unanimous consent adopted a resolution providing that it would hold pro forma sessions every Tuesday and Friday through January 20, 2012, with no business to be transacted. On January 4, 2012, between the January 3 and January 6 pro forma sessions, the President invoked the Recess Appointments Clause and appointed all three individuals to the Board. Noel Canning argued that the appointments were invalid because they occurred during a three-day adjournment that was not long enough to trigger the Recess Appointments Clause. The D.C. Circuit agreed that the appointments fell outside the scope of the Clause, though on different grounds, and set aside the Board's order. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the validity of the recess appointments.
View caseSolomon Silver, the district judge, states that the case stands adjourned after the school board seeks clarification on equal access rules. The adjournment delays the injunction hearing and allows supplemental briefing. The court reconvenes once the parties submit the requested materials.
Westside High School is a public secondary school in Omaha, Nebraska, that enrolls about 1,450 students in grades 10 through 12 and is part of the Westside Community Schools district. Under school board policy, students may join on a voluntary basis any of approximately 30 recognized student clubs and groups that meet after school hours on school premises. Students wishing to form a club must obtain permission from the principal and submit a statement of the club's purpose and objectives, and each club must have a faculty sponsor. In January 1985, respondent Bridget Mergens met with Principal Dr. Findley and requested permission to form a Christian club at the school. The proposed club would have the same privileges and meet on the same terms as other student groups, except that it would not have a faculty sponsor. The club's purposes included providing a forum for students to discuss and share their beliefs in God, study the Bible, live in accordance with their religious beliefs, and pray together, with membership open to all students regardless of religious affiliation. Findley denied the request, as did Associate Superintendent Tangdell and Superintendent Hanson. The school officials explained that school policy required all student clubs to have a faculty sponsor and that a religious club would violate the Establishment Clause. In March 1985, Mergens appealed the denial to the board of education, which voted to uphold the denial. Respondents, through their parents as next friends, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. They alleged that the denial violated the Equal Access Act. The United States intervened to defend the constitutionality of the Act. The District Court entered judgment for petitioners, holding that the Act did not apply because Westside did not maintain a limited open forum as all existing student clubs were curriculum-related. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed. It held that the District Court erred in concluding that all existing student clubs at Westside were curriculum-related and that many clubs, including the chess club, were noncurriculum-related. The Court of Appeals concluded that Westside maintained a limited open forum under the Act and that the Act did not violate the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseSofia Stern, the sentencing judge, announces that the proceeding stands adjourned to permit additional argument on the guidelines' constitutionality. The adjournment pauses imposition of sentence and allows the parties to address separation of powers concerns. The hearing resumes after the briefs are filed.
In 1984, Congress enacted the Sentencing Reform Act to address widespread criticisms that federal sentencing was a national scandal marked by unwarranted disparities and uncertainty. The legislation created the United States Sentencing Commission as an independent commission in the judicial branch consisting of seven voting members. The President appoints the members with the advice and consent of the Senate, and at least three members must be federal judges selected after consideration of recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States, while the Attorney General serves as an ex officio nonvoting member. Petitioner John M. Mistretta was indicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on three counts centering on a cocaine sale. He pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The district court sentenced him under the Guidelines to 18 months' imprisonment to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release, along with a $1,000 fine and a $50 assessment. Mistretta appealed his sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, challenging the constitutionality of the Sentencing Commission and the Guidelines. Both Mistretta and the United States petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari before judgment in the Eighth Circuit. The Court granted the petitions because of the imperative public importance of the issue and the disarray among the federal district courts.
View caseThe announcement places the proceeding in a suspended state until a later date. The presiding officer uses the phrase to signal that scheduled business will not continue immediately. This status is distinct from a final dismissal or termination of the matter.
The Constitution authorizes the President to set a time for reconvening when the houses disagree on adjournment. The announcement that Congress stands adjourned therefore triggers the President's limited authority under Article II. The phrase marks the formal suspension that activates this power.
Yes. A district court may adjourn or pretermit a session for insufficient business or other good cause. The clerk may also adjourn the court when the judge is unavailable. The announcement creates the official suspended status.
An arbitrator may adjourn a hearing for good cause but cannot postpone it beyond the contractual deadline without party consent. The announcement suspends proceedings while preserving the original time limit for the award unless the parties agree otherwise.