The $1.7 trillion government funding bill enacted in 2022 has been declared unconstitutional by a US District Judge in Lubbock, Texas due to its approval via remote voting, a rule enforced during the pandemic. Despite its convenience during the global crisis, the judge ruled that remote voting goes against the Constitution’s requirement for legislators to be physically present in Congress to cast votes.
This controversial decision has sparked debates across the country. The return to pre-COVID legislative operations is seen by some as a practical necessity in the digital age, while others argue for the vital need to maintain constitutional norms.
Another dispute arose when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton argued against a section of the bill that offers enhanced protections to pregnant workers. He claimed it goes beyond federal law and imposes burdensome regulations on businesses. Supporters of the bill countered by stating these improvements are crucial for defending the rights of pregnant workers nationwide.
A ‘limited’ ruling was issued by US District Judge Wesley Hendrix on the case, inhibiting the implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act against the state as an employer. This act requires employers to make sensible alterations to work conditions for their pregnant employees.
Paxton had previously initiated a lawsuit claiming that the majority of the House Representatives casting their votes through proxy was unconstitutional. He argued that such indirect means of voting disrupted the constitutional requirement of ‘a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business.’ The lawsuit posed serious questions around the integrity of the lawmaking process and challenged the balance of power.
Amid the COVID-19 pandemic in May 2020, the rule to vote remotely was established by the then-House Speaker, Democrat Nancy Pelosi. The rule, despite several unsuccessful legal challenges, was repealed when the Republicans took over in 2022, following the 2022 midterm elections which saw Democrats losing control over the House.
Judge Hendrix, in his detailed 120-page decision, reinforced the age-old requirement for physical presence during legislative voting as per the Constitution’s quorum clause. His complete examination of historical precedents sheds light on the deeply embodied tradition in the US justice system.
Judge Hendrix, however, allowed a $20 million provision in the bill to remain that provides support to foreigners during immigration deportation procedures, stating that Texas lacked sufficient authority to dispute it.
