A Lubbock, Texas, federal judge ruled Tuesday that lawmakers unconstitutionally passed the $1.7 trillion government funding bill in 2022 when they did so under a pandemic-era rule allowing members of the U.S. House of Representatives to vote on the matter by proxy instead of in person.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, requested the courts block a provision of the funding bill that gave pregnant workers stronger legal protections.
U.S. District Judge Wesley Hendrix reviewed the request and issued a “limited” ruling on one of two provisions Paxton sought to have blocked.
Hendrix, appointed by former President Trump, ruled the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was wrongfully passed, blocking the law from being enforced against the state as an employer.
TEXAS AG KEN PAXTON SAYS STATE WON’T COMPLY WITH BIDEN ADMINISTRATION ORDER TO REOPEN PARK TO FEDERAL AGENTS
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, right, and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt talk to reporters April 26, 2022, in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, enacted in December 2022, requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers.
In his ruling, Hendrix noted that his injunction is only applicable to state government employees.
Paxton filed a lawsuit last year, arguing the federal spending package was unconstitutionally passed because over half of the House of Representatives were not physically present to provide a quorum, yet they still voted by proxy.
EAGLE PASS MAYOR SAYS SHOWDOWN BETWEEN TEXAS, FEDS OVER BORDER CONTROL IS ‘FRUSTRATING,’ A ‘CONSTANT STRUGGLE’
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., looks on as House Democrats react to the passage of the Build Back Better Act at the U.S. Capitol Nov. 19, 2021, in Washington, D.C. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
In May 2020, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, helped get a rule in place allowing lawmakers to vote by proxy in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
When Republicans took control of the House in 2022, they ditched the proxy rule after challenging it in court unsuccessfully.
Hendrix said in a 120-page ruling that for over 200 years leading up to the voting proxy rule’s adoption, Congress understood that the majority of members of the House or Senate were required to be physically present to have a quorum to pass legislation, as stipulated under the Constitution’s quorum clause.
TEXAS AG PAXTON SUES NGO AIDING MIGRANTS, ACCUSES IT OF ENCOURAGING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
Members of the Supreme Court (L-R): associate justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and associate justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Elena Kagan and Brett M. Kavanaugh pose in the justices’ conference room prior to the formal investiture ceremony of Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Sept. 30, 2022, in Washington, D.C. (Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States via Getty Images)
“Supreme Court precedent has long held that the Quorum Clause requires presence, and the Clause’s text distinguishes those absent members from the quorum and provides a mechanism for obtaining a physical quorum by compelling absent members to attend,” he wrote.
Paxton said Congress acted “egregiously” when it passed the $1.7 trillion funding bill.
“Congress acted egregiously by passing the largest spending bill in U.S. history with fewer than half the members of the House bothering to do their jobs, show up and vote in person,” Paxton said. “Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi abused proxy voting under the pretext of COVID-19 to pass this law, then Biden signed it, knowing they violated the Constitution. This was a stunning violation of the rule of law. I am relieved the court upheld the Constitution.”
The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s requests for comment.
Reuters reported that Texas Public Policy Foundation lawyer Matthew Miller said the ruling “correctly” concluded a physical quorum was required to vote.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Hendrix also found in his ruling that Texas did not have standing to challenge $20 million appropriated in the bill to fund a pilot program providing case management and other services to noncitizens during immigration removal proceedings.
Reuters contributed to this report.
