Texas AG Wins! Congress Must Be Physically Present to Pass Spending Bills

In a recent decision by federal Judge James Wesley Hendrix, declared “proxy ruling” exceptions are in violation of the Quorum Clause, which states that members of congress need to be physically present in house chambers to vote on bills.

Despite any distractions that are used as excuses to vote while not present.

🚨 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

The Federalist reported on the initial lawsuit:

In February, the Texas attorney general sued the Biden administration, arguing the House of Representatives lacked the constitutionally mandated quorum to pass the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Paxton is now seeking a preliminary injunction to bar the federal government from enforcing the law.

As Paxton details in his brief supporting Texas’ motion, when the House purported to pass the $1.7 trillion spending bill on Dec. 23, 2022, it lacked a quorum because only 201 representatives were present. Yet the House proceeded with the vote, counting votes of both the 201 present lawmakers and adding to the tally an extra 226 votes those lawmakers cast on behalf of absent members who had appointed them as “proxies.”

The House clerk recorded the bill passed — with 225 yea votes, 201 nay, and 1 present — relying on a rule originally adopted in May of 2020 that allowed members to “designate[] another Member as a proxy” to cast their votes if “a public health emergency due to a novel coronavirus is in effect[.]” Biden later signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act on Dec. 29, 2022, purporting to make it law and providing appropriations for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2023.

But the House Proxy Rule violates the quorum clause of the Constitution, Paxton argues in his lawsuit against the Biden administration, and thus the Consolidated Appropriations Act never became law.

While many were happy to hear the news, some were perplexed as to how this is actually a win.

After all, the money is already spent, or floating around somewhere, never to be returned.

Ok, but who is going to be Punished?

— A Conservative Dad (@AConservativeDa) February 28, 2024

…but what’s the relief? The money is more than halfway spent.

— US Burning (@UsBurning) February 28, 2024

So who pays back the taxpayer?

— Donna McWhorter (@dsmcwhorter) February 28, 2024

While there may not be any money returned for programs that weren’t appropriately voted on, this win sets a precedent.

The next time Nacy Pelosi and Co. want to shove a bill down the throats of American voters thinking no one is watching, our representatives have to be there to vote on them.

In person.

Whoa, talk about a plot twist! But like, is remote work not a thing for Congress? Maybe they need a lesson in digital nomad life.

— missa❤️ (@SugarMissa1) February 28, 2024

Bills that big, and all bills for that matter, should be thoroughly reviewed by all members of congress.

There is no way something that large doesn’t have some sneaky provisions hidden within.

And people question why Republicans want a single subject bill for the border.

I remember the loaded omnibus bill. What was it, 4000 pages with 24 hours to review it.
No wonder why the house is pushing for single subject bills only.

— Brandon Comeau (@ComeauB36) February 28, 2024

Some pointed out that laws don’t’ seem to matter to some people.

Or some administrations.

Fantastic but the law means nothing to the lawless Biden regime.

— God Bless Donald Trump (@grandeleague1) February 27, 2024

Whether this has any major implications is in the near future is hard to say, but it is nevertheless a victory for Texas AG Ken Paxton.

And for all of us.

Huge win! Congratulations! pic.twitter.com/2wLt3gOgGv

— Crisis Action Team (@CrisisActionTm) February 27, 2024

NBC News has more on the verdict from Judge James Wesley Hendrix:

In a 120-page ruling, Hendrix said that for over two centuries before the “novel” proxy voting rule’s adoption, Congress understood that the Constitution’s quorum clause required a majority of members of the House or Senate to be physically present to have quorum to pass legislation.

“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.

The U.S. Department of Justice, which defended the bill on behalf of Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration, had no immediate comment.

Matthew Miller, a lawyer with the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation who represented the state, said the ruling “correctly” concluded a physical quorum was required.