A recent decision by a Texas federal judge to block a pregnancy bias law that was allegedly passed without a quorum in Congress has caused concern among legal professionals. The fear arises from the possibility of further legal action targeting other labour-related laws approved through the same spending package.
Judge James Hendrix of the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled in favour of the state, determining that a proxy voting procedure started during Covid-19 lockdowns violated the US Constitution. Consequently, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is unenforceable against Texas state employees.
The spending package containing the PWFA also incorporated other labour-related laws, including the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act, the SECURE 2.0 Act, and a sizable sum of $25 million allocated for the National Labor Relations Board. This means these laws and provisions may now face similar legal suits as Texas’s, a situation that could lead to confusion regarding enforcement and possible US Supreme Court intervention.
The PWFA and other related laws were last-minute additions to an enormous omnibus spending bill that passed the Senate just before Christmas in 2022. Although senators were present for the vote, many House members voted by proxy under rules that the new Republican leadership cancelled in early 2023.
The lawsuit filed by Texas against the Justice Department, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and other agencies, initially sought to enjoin the whole funding package. However, it later shifted to focus solely on appropriations for a unique Department of Homeland Security pilot program and the PWFA. Legal experts have suggested that Texas’s decision to seek a narrow intervention was crucial to the lawsuit’s success.
Despite its relatively small-scope holding, the Texas decision has advocates worried about legal ripple effects. These may come in the shape of further challenges to the PWFA from the states as well as suits challenging the other labour-related clauses in the spending package.
Given the potential implications of the Texas litigation, it comes as no surprise that it is being seen as a “roadmap” for others both in private and public sectors seeking to file similar cases. If similar lawsuits find success, a patchwork of rulings might arise that ends up banning laws enacted under the proxy voting rule in specific state jurisdictions.
Finally, the ruling by Judge Hendrix appears ripe for an appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and possibly even a Supreme Court review, particularly on the issue of imposing judicial standards on legislative proceedings.
All these developing circumstances indicate that the legal community, particularly those involved in labour and employment law, should follow this situation closely. The case is Texas v. Dep’t of Justice, N.D. Tex., No. 23-cv-00034, opinion 2/27/24.