Paxton sues to overturn vote on U.S. budget

Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed suit against the federal government alleging that the final vote to approve the U.S. budget by the House of Representatives last December was illegal because not enough members were physically present.

The suit, filed in federal court in Lubbock, attacks not only the manner in which the vote was taken but the fact that the legislation added protections for pregnant women under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act also creates a pilot program for releasing aliens who might otherwise be detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement “into the interior of the United States based on a promise to appear at future immigration-court proceedings.” The conservative think tank Texas Public Policy Foundation joined the brief in support of a preliminary injunction.

A press release from Paxton’s office states, “Under the Constitution, if more than half of its members are absent, the House of Representatives lacks a quorum and may only ‘adjourn from day-to-day’ or ‘compel the attendance of absent members.’”

The release further states that last December, “while more than half the members were physically absent from the Capitol, the omnibus bill passed the House only because then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi circumvented the constitutional requirement that a quorum be present to conduct business. The bill’s passage was made possible only by allowing members who were not physically present – but who instead voted by proxy – to be counted as ‘present,’ which Pelosi deceptively claimed constituted a quorum.” The House was acting under rules designed to limit the spread of Covid-19.

Paxton’s suit claims that the bill did not lawfully pass in the House of Representatives, so the president’s signing it was unlawful and implementation is also illegal.

Photo made available through a Creative Commons license.

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.