Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the Biden administration over a pregnant worker protection law that he said was unconstitutional because it passed mostly by proxy vote.

WASHINGTON — A federal court in Lubbock ruled Tuesday that proxy voting in Congress doesn’t count toward a quorum, weakening a law to protect pregnant workers that was passed with proxy votes.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the Biden administration last year over a massive government funding package that passed largely by proxy votes because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The funding package, passed in December 2022, included the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which protects accommodations for pregnant employees in the workplace and allows workers to sue employers for failing to do so. It prohibited employers from denying employment opportunities or forcing pregnant workers to go on leave if alternative accommodations were possible.

Paxton argued the Constitution requires a physical majority of members in the U.S. House to pass legislation. Since a majority of members of the House voted on the funding package by proxy, Paxton said it was unenforceable.

Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi allowed members to vote by proxy due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Members of both parties took advantage of proxy voting for a range of reasons, from meeting with lobbyists to promoting books. The funding package came to a House vote in late December when many members had already left Washington for the holiday recess.

Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the Northern District of Texas agreed with Paxton’s understanding of a quorum.

“Based on the Quorum Clause’s text, original public meaning, and historical practice, the Court concludes that the Quorum Clause bars the creation of a quorum by including non-present members participating by proxy,” Hendrix wrote in his opinion.

Paxton took issue with the PWFA in particular in his original lawsuit, asserting it put undue burden on the state government to accommodate its pregnant employees. He wrote Texas already has provisions to accommodate pregnancy and that the law unconstitutionally opened the state to lawsuits over the federal law.

Hendrix ruled the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act unenforceable against the state government and its agencies. It does not nullify the entire $1.7 trillion spending package. Doing so would jeopardize programs across the federal government, including defense spending, health care and veterans programs.

Hendrix gave the federal government a week to appeal.

read more: https://www.aol.com/federal-judge-rules-against-pregnant-232338554.html

  • notfromhere
    30·
    8 months ago

    How can you invalidate just the portion of a law you don’t like based on a technicality without invalidating the whole law that is subject to the same technicality?

    • AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      5·
      8 months ago

      It is a little complicated:

      Before proceeding further, the Court notes the limited scope of this case, this opinion, and the relief granted. This case does not involve creating a count of the representatives’ locations or second-guessing the House’s own count and listing of its members. Instead, the Court takes as true the House’s recitation of its proceedings and its designation of certain members as participating by proxy. Further, the Court makes no judgment on the wisdom of the House’s proxy rule, only its constitutionality as it pertains to counting absent members as part of the quorum. Nor does the Court address whether some members may permissibly vote by proxy if the constitutionally required quorum is otherwise physically present at the time of the vote. Finally, although the Court finds that the passage of the Consolidated Appropriations Act violated the Constitution, Texas does not seek an injunction of—and the Court does not enjoin—the entire Act. Rather, the Court enjoins only the application of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act against Texas. The relief granted here is limited to abating the injury that Texas has proven will occur.

      https://www.scribd.com/document/709363863/State-of-Texas-v-Merrick-Garland-Et-Al