A federal court ruled major portions of the 2022 omnibus spending bill unconstitutional because it passed the House without a physical quorum through proxy voting due to COVID.
The suit was brought by Texas AG Ken Paxton, who celebrated the decision.
The court found that proxy voting violated the Constitution’s quorum clause requiring in-person presence.
🚨 HUGE WIN: We Just Secured A Win On The Case Challenging $1.7 Trillion Federal Funding Bill Passed Unconstitutionally With Less Than Half of U.S. Congress Physically Present Congress acted egregiously by passing the largest spending bill in U.S. history with fewer… https://t.co/5GiKsg9S2C
— Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) February 27, 2024
Paxton wrote in a statement, “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.”
“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,” his statement continued.
While the ruling doesn’t invalidate the entire $1.7 trillion bill signed by Biden, it does enjoin application of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act against Texas.
Judge James Wesley Hendrix ruled, “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.”
The judge continued, “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.”
He added, “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 explained, “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. This power to compel attendance makes little sense divorced from physical presence.”
The decision sets up a potential showdown over negating parts of Biden’s agenda passed in the spending bill midway through his reelection campaign.
The White House did not comment on the ruling, leaving uncertainty around clawing back spending that has already occurred.
