Lame-duck session

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (December 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this message) The article's lead section may need to be rewritten. Please help improve the lead and read the lead layout guide. (September 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this message) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

A lame-duck session of Congress in the United States occurs whenever one Congress meets after its successor is elected, but before the successor's term begins. The expression is now used not only for a special session called after a sine die adjournment, but also for any portion of a regular session that falls after an election. In current practice, any meeting of Congress after election day, but before the next Congress convenes the following January, is a lame-duck session.^[1] Prior to 1933, when the 20th Amendment changed the dates of the congressional term, the last regular session of Congress was always a lame-duck session.

Congress has held 16 lame-duck sessions since 1940. Recesses preceding lame-duck sessions have usually begun by mid-October, and typically lasted between one and two months. Congress typically reconvened in mid-November and adjourned before Christmas, so that the lame-duck session lasted about a month. Some recesses, however, have begun as early as August 7 or as late as November 3, and ended as early as November 8 or as late as December 31. Lame-duck sessions have ended as early as November 22 and as late as January 3, and have extended over as few as one, and as many as 145, calendar days.^{[citation needed]}

Some lame-duck sessions have been held largely for pro forma reasons (e.g., 1948), on a standby basis (e.g., 1940, 1942), or to deal with a single specific matter (e.g., 1954, 1994, 1998). Some sessions, as well, have deferred major matters to the succeeding Congress (e.g., 1944, 1982, 2004), especially when a stronger majority for the same party was in prospect. Most, however, could be regarded as at least moderately productive. When the President has presented an extensive agenda to a lame-duck session controlled by his own party, it has often approved many of his recommendations (e.g., 1950, 2002, 2004), but when he has done so under conditions of divided government, he has had less success, and has often vetoed measures (e.g., 1970, 1974, 1982). Additionally, a major task of most lame-duck sessions in recent years has been to complete action on appropriations and the budget. In 1974, 1980, 1982, 2000, 2004, and 2012, this effort was at least somewhat successful, but in 1970 and 2002 a final resolution was largely left to the following Congress.

Lame-duck sessions do not usually occur in countries under a parliamentary form of government, whether the Westminster system or other models. Under a parliamentary system there are usually no fixed dates for elections or the beginning of terms, so that a new session of parliament will always begin with its first meeting after an election has been held. Often the previous parliament is dissolved by the head of state at the request of the head of government, therefore even in an emergency there is no parliament to call after the final session until the new parliament has been elected. In contrast to members of Congress who do wield their full authority until their term ends, the power of outgoing parliamentarians is limited by convention; any cabinet ministers that were members of the now dissolved parliament will serve in an "acting" or "caretaker" capacity (i.e. not being able to make important appointments nor policy declarations) until the new parliament convenes.