A contentious legal battle is brewing over the validity of a massive federal spending bill, with potentially far-reaching consequences for U.S. governance.
As reported by the Washington Examiner, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a brief urging the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a lower court's decision that invalidates a $1.7 trillion government spending bill.
Paxton argues that the bill's passage in 2022 violated the Constitution's quorum clause due to the extensive use of proxy voting. The case centers on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which was included in the omnibus spending bill. Paxton contends that Texas should not be required to follow this act, as the bill's passage was unconstitutional.
Paxton's argument hinges on the fact that only 201 House lawmakers were physically present on Capitol Hill during the vote, while 226 members voted remotely. This practice, introduced by former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in May 2020 due to COVID-19, continued through the end of her term in December 2022.
The Texas Attorney General argues that Congress has historically required physical presence for quorum, even during wars and crises, to ensure proper representation. Judge Hendrix sided with Paxton, ruling that the bill violated the quorum clause, but Attorney General Merrick Garland is appealing the decision.
If the appeals court sides with Paxton, the ramifications could extend far beyond the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The entire omnibus bill, encompassing $1.7 trillion in government spending, could potentially be invalidated.
The Department of Justice has criticized the lower court's ruling, arguing that it inappropriately interferes with House proceedings. DOJ attorneys claim the decision represents an unwarranted intrusion into the operations of a coordinated branch of government.
Several interested parties have submitted amicus briefs in the case, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. McConnell's brief, authored by former Attorney General Bill Barr and other lawyers, supports the DOJ's position.
Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who was a minority leader in December 2022, criticized the high number of absent Congress members during the omnibus bill vote. He stated that failing to show up for such a significant spending bill vote would "forever stain this Congress."
Other Republicans, including then-Rules Committee ranking member Tom Cole and former Wisconsin Rep. Mike Gallagher, expressed concerns about the frequent use of proxy voting, particularly on Fridays, and accused members of lying on their proxy voting forms.
Paxton's brief argues that voting without physical presence equates to "legislation without representation," undermining democracy. McConnell's brief counters that while proxy voting has flaws, not all disagreements require court intervention, warning against weakening congressional authority.
Paxton and the DOJ requested that the appellate court hear oral arguments as the next step in this high-stakes legal battle. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for legislative procedures and the validity of laws passed during the proxy voting period.
Texas is challenging a $1.7 trillion federal spending bill, arguing that its passage through proxy voting was unconstitutional. The case, centered on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, could potentially invalidate the entire omnibus bill if the court rules in Texas's favor. This legal battle highlights ongoing debates about congressional voting practices and the balance of power between branches of government.
