Connect with us

Southwest

Federal judge rules $1.7 trillion spending bill passed by Congress in 2022 is unconstitutional

Published

on

Federal judge rules .7 trillion spending bill passed by Congress in 2022 is unconstitutional

Join Fox News for access to this content

Plus special access to select articles and other premium content with your account – free of charge.

Please enter a valid email address.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. To access the content, check your email and follow the instructions provided.

Having trouble? Click here.

A Lubbock, Texas, federal judge ruled Tuesday that lawmakers unconstitutionally passed the $1.7 trillion government funding bill in 2022 when they did so under a pandemic-era rule allowing members of the U.S. House of Representatives to vote on the matter by proxy instead of in person.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, requested the courts block a provision of the funding bill that gave pregnant workers stronger legal protections.

Advertisement

U.S. District Judge Wesley Hendrix reviewed the request and issued a “limited” ruling on one of two provisions Paxton sought to have blocked.

Hendrix, appointed by former President Trump, ruled the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was wrongfully passed, blocking the law from being enforced against the state as an employer.

TEXAS AG KEN PAXTON SAYS STATE WON’T COMPLY WITH BIDEN ADMINISTRATION ORDER TO REOPEN PARK TO FEDERAL AGENTS

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, right, and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt talk to reporters April 26, 2022, in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, enacted in December 2022, requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers.

Advertisement

In his ruling, Hendrix noted that his injunction is only applicable to state government employees.

Paxton filed a lawsuit last year, arguing the federal spending package was unconstitutionally passed because over half of the House of Representatives were not physically present to provide a quorum, yet they still voted by proxy.

EAGLE PASS MAYOR SAYS SHOWDOWN BETWEEN TEXAS, FEDS OVER BORDER CONTROL IS ‘FRUSTRATING,’ A ‘CONSTANT STRUGGLE’

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., looks on as House Democrats react to the passage of the Build Back Better Act at the U.S. Capitol Nov. 19, 2021, in Washington, D.C. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

In May 2020, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, helped get a rule in place allowing lawmakers to vote by proxy in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Advertisement

When Republicans took control of the House in 2022, they ditched the proxy rule after challenging it in court unsuccessfully.

Hendrix said in a 120-page ruling that for over 200 years leading up to the voting proxy rule’s adoption, Congress understood that the majority of members of the House or Senate were required to be physically present to have a quorum to pass legislation, as stipulated under the Constitution’s quorum clause.

TEXAS AG PAXTON SUES NGO AIDING MIGRANTS, ACCUSES IT OF ENCOURAGING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Members of the Supreme Court (L-R): associate justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and associate justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Elena Kagan and Brett M. Kavanaugh pose in the justices’ conference room prior to the formal investiture ceremony of Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Sept. 30, 2022, in Washington, D.C. (Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States via Getty Images)

“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,” he wrote.

Advertisement

Paxton said Congress acted “egregiously” when it passed the $1.7 trillion funding bill.

“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,” Paxton said. “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 Department of Justice did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s requests for comment.

Reuters reported that Texas Public Policy Foundation lawyer Matthew Miller said the ruling “correctly” concluded a physical quorum was required to vote.

Advertisement

Hendrix also found in his ruling that Texas did not have standing to challenge $20 million appropriated in the bill to fund a pilot program providing case management and other services to noncitizens during immigration removal proceedings.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Read the full article from Here

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Los Angeles, Ca

Woman ambushed, violently attacked by robber in downtown Long Beach

Published

on

Woman ambushed, violently attacked by robber in downtown Long Beach

A woman was hospitalized with serious injuries after she was violently attacked by a robber in downtown Long Beach. On June 18, Jennifer Silva, 34, was attending a World Cup watch party at a Hooters restaurant at 90 Aquarium Way. After the game ended, she left the restaurant just before 11 p.m. As she walked […]

Continue Reading

Los Angeles, Ca

Jury says it is deadlocked in trial of man accused in Palisades Fire

Published

on

Jury says it is deadlocked in trial of man accused in Palisades Fire

Jurors deliberating the fate of the man accused of starting the Palisades Fire, one of the most destructive wildfires in California’s history, failed to reach a verdict Thursday afternoon, telling the judge they were deadlocked.

A spokesperson from the United States Attorney’s Office told KTLA that jurors will continue to deliberate until they reach a verdict or give up.

Jonathan Rinderknecht, 30, a former Uber driver and one-time Pacific Palisades resident, is accused of starting the Lachman Fire on New Year’s Eve. The fire continued to smolder underground for about a week, even after Los Angeles firefighters believed it had been extinguished.

Flames reignited on Jan. 7, erupting into the deadly Palisades Fire that killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of homes in the upscale community, authorities said.

  • A courtroom sketch of Jonathan Rinderknecht, 29, during his initial court appearance on Oct. 23, 2025.
  • Palisades Fire Suspect

Prosecutors argued that Rinderknecht deliberately set the fire, claiming he had grown increasingly resentful of wealthy residents and viewed Pacific Palisades as a symbol of that frustration.

“Their case, though circumstantial, is strong,” KTLA legal analyst Alison Triessl said. “The defense is relying on, can they (prosecutors) show beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Rinderknecht actually started this fire and it wasn’t the result of fireworks or some intervening cause.”

Advertisement

The defense argued there is no direct physical evidence tying Rinderknecht to the fire and said the prosecution’s case relies entirely on circumstantial evidence. Rinderknecht did not testify during the trial.

Defense attorney Steve Haney spoke outside the courthouse Wednesday about why he believes it will be difficult for prosecutors to prove how the fire started.

“The lack of scene preservation. The fact that they got there after a lot of the evidence was missing. Not a lot of direct evidence. This is a circumstantial case, which is always difficult as a prosecutor to prove,” Haney said.

Rinderknecht, who was arrested and indicted last October, faces up to 45 years in prison if found guilty of three arson counts, including destruction of property by means of fire, arson affecting property used in interstate commerce and timber set afire.

Tony Kurzweil contributed to this report

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Los Angeles, Ca

Boyle Heights warehouse cleanup begins as crews face 85 million pounds of spoiled food

Published

on

Boyle Heights warehouse cleanup begins as crews face 85 million pounds of spoiled food

Cleanup efforts are underway Thursday at the Boyle Heights cold-storage warehouse that burned for eight days after firefighters officially declared the massive blaze knocked down Wednesday evening. Los Angeles Fire Department crews remain at the Lineage warehouse near Union Pacific Avenue and South La Puente Street as they transition into the overhaul phase, searching for […]

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending