STATE OF TEXAS, Plaintiff
v.
MERRICK GARLAND, in his official
capacity as Attorney General, et al.,
Defendants


Judge Hendrix’s 120-page opinion meticulously dismantled the Justice Department’s defense of the spending bill, addressing the arguments one by one. In particular, he dismissed the notion that federal courts lack jurisdiction to scrutinize the legislative process, citing Supreme Court precedent that requires resolving any challenges to a quorum rule before applying the enrolled bill doctrine.

Quote:For over 235 years, Congress understood the Constitution’s Quorum Clause to require a majority of members of the House or Senate to be physically present to constitute the necessary quorum to pass legislation. This rule prevents a minority of members from passing legislation that affects the entire nation. But despite the Constitution’s text and centuries of consistent practice, the House in 2020 created a rule that permitted non-present members to be included in the quorum count and vote by proxy. Pursuant to that novel rule, the House passed a new law included within the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, and that particular provision affects Texas. Like many constitutional challenges, Texas asserts that this provision is unenforceable against it because Congress violated the Constitution in passing the law.…

And because the House only had a quorum due to this unconstitutional provision of its proxy rule, the House violated the Quorum Clause when it passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Finally, the Court finds that Texas has carried its burden to show its entitlement to a permanent injunction of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. In light of these conclusions, the Court enjoins the defendants from enforcing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act against the State of Texas.

“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,” said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

“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 Texas Public Policy Foundation served as co-counsel. “This meticulous, 120-page opinion was written after a full trial on the merits,” said TPPF senior attorney Matt Miller. “The Court correctly concluded that the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 violated the Quorum Clause of the U.S. Constitution because a majority of House members was not physically present when the $1.7 trillion spending bill was passed. Proxy voting is unconstitutional.”

Texas Rep. Chip Roy (TX-21) issued the following statement in response to Judge James Hendrix’s ruling:

Quote: Article I of the Constitution has always made it clear that House and Senate members be physically present when conducting certain legislative business. For our constitutional system to work, it must be followed.

During passage of Pelosi’s $1.7 trillion lame duck FY 2023 omnibus in December 2022, I noted a physical quorum was not present. Indeed, a majority of Members – 226 – elected to vote by proxy on the bill’s final passage.

While this ruling’s reach will not be immediate, it is a critically important first step in forming judicial precedent against unconstitutional proxy voting. Thank you to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and the Texas Public Policy Foundation for leading this effort in court. And thank you to the Mountain States Legal Foundation for their work on the amicus brief we led in the case. I also want to thank former Speaker Kevin McCarthy for working with me to challenge the constitutionality of proxy voting which the Supreme Court did not take up, but represented the right legal and philosophical position — a position underscored by yesterday’s judgment.