{"id":2601823,"date":"2026-05-12T16:44:01","date_gmt":"2026-05-12T20:44:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/fifth-circuit-grills-doj-on-legality-of-houses-proxy-voting-policy\/"},"modified":"2026-05-12T16:46:20","modified_gmt":"2026-05-12T20:46:20","slug":"fifth-circuit-grills-doj-on-legality-of-houses-proxy-voting-policy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/fifth-circuit-grills-doj-on-legality-of-houses-proxy-voting-policy\/","title":{"rendered":"Fifth Circuit grills DOJ on legality of House&#8217;s proxy voting policy"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">22<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Ffifth-circuit-grills-doj-on-legality-of-houses-proxy-voting-policy%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2601823&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>A full bench of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit examined a Texas lawsuit challenging Congress\u2019s pandemic-era proxy voting policy-where many House votes were cast remotely-used when the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was passed in 2022. The judges questioned DOJ attorney Sean Janda on whether the proxy rule complied with the constitution\u2019s quorum clause, which requires a majority to be present to conduct votes.<\/p>\n<p>Janda argued that proxy voting could still satisfy quorum rules defined by the House and warned that a ruling for Texas could hinder Congress during future emergencies by undermining how Congress validates business without physical attendance. Judges pressed back by asking what counts as a quorum if one chamber allows proxy voting, and they questioned Janda\u2019s reliance on the lack of ancient support for proxy voting as a substitute for physical presence.<\/p>\n<p>Although the House later eliminated the COVID-era proxy voting rules after Republicans took control of the chamber in 2023, the practice remains controversial; the article also <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/architect-of-epsteins-lenient-2008-plea-deal-to-testify\/\" title=\"Architect of Epstein\u2019s lenient 2008 plea deal to testify\">notes ongoing disputes<\/a> and alleged misuse of proxy-like voting.Separate questioning of Texas Solicitor General William Peterson focused on whether physical presence is truly required for quorum. The panel did not say when it will rule, but if Texas loses, the case could move to the Supreme Court-especially since a district court previously sided with Texas while an earlier 5th Circuit panel sided with the federal government.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<article class=\"fn-body\">\n<p>A federal <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/appeals-courts\/\" type=\"post_tag\" id=\"1537\">appeals court<\/a> grilled <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/justice-department\/\" type=\"post_tag\" id=\"167\">Justice Department<\/a> lawyers on Tuesday over Congress\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/over-dem-objections-biden-admin-on-track-to-end-pandemic-policy-that-allows-swift-deportation-of-migrants\/\" title=\"Over Dem Objections, Biden Admin on Track To End Pandemic Policy That Allows Swift Deportation of Migrants\">pandemic-era policy<\/a> of proxy voting for legislation, after <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/texas\/\" type=\"post_tag\" id=\"253\">Texas<\/a> filed a lawsuit arguing that a law passed by a majority of congressmen who voted by proxy was passed unconstitutionally.<\/p>\n<p>The full bench of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit heard arguments in a <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/3330307\/house-bill-pelosi-proxy-voting-rules-court-review\/\" type=\"link\" id=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/3330307\/house-bill-pelosi-proxy-voting-rules-court-review\/\">lawsuit challenging<\/a> the enactment of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a $1.<a href=\"https:\/\/amzn.to\/3YuVZYV\" >7 trillion federal omnibus bill passed<\/a> in 2022, after more than half of the votes in the House were cast remotely using the <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/2607133\/voting-for-10-house-to-vote-on-sweeping-historic-change-allowing-proxy-and-remote-business\/\">pandemic-era proxy voting policy<\/a> under then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). The judges on the appeals court grilled DOJ lawyer Sean Janda over his defense of the House\u2019s now-defunct proxy voting rule, as he argued it is in compliance with the quorum clause of the Constitution, which finds a majority of the chamber must be present to conduct votes.<\/p>\n<section class=\"explore-more-section\" id=\"wex-recommended-widget\">\n<div class=\"magazine-container single\">\n<h1 class=\"magazine-title mt-2\">Recommended Stories<\/h1>\n<p>             <i class=\"fa-solid fa-play icon\"><\/i>         <\/div>\n<div class=\"explore-grid\">\n<div class=\"explore-card\">                         <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/4564564\/5th-circuit-grills-doj-legality-of-house-covid-proxy-voting-policy\/?itm_source=parsely-api\">                             <\/p>\n<div class=\"explore-thumb-wrap\">                                                                                                                                  <\/div>\n<h3>Fifth Circuit grills DOJ on legality of House\u2019s COVID-era proxy voting policy<\/h3>\n<p>                         <\/a>                     <\/div>\n<div class=\"explore-card\">                         <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/4564781\/doj-paypal-scrap-dei-30-million-settlement\/?itm_source=parsely-api\">                             <\/p>\n<div class=\"explore-thumb-wrap\">                                                                                                                                  <\/div>\n<h3>DOJ forces PayPal to scrap DEI business initiative in $30 million settlement<\/h3>\n<p>                         <\/a>                     <\/div>\n<div class=\"explore-card\">                         <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/4564608\/watchdog-sue-interior-department-freedom-250-fund-transparency\/?itm_source=parsely-api\">                             <\/p>\n<div class=\"explore-thumb-wrap\">                                                                                                                                  <\/div>\n<h3>Watchdog sues Interior Department over Freedom 250 funding transparency<\/h3>\n<p>                         <\/a>                     <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/section>\n<p>Janda argued both that the proxy voting rule is constitutional and that siding with Texas against proxy voting methods could hobble Congress during future emergencies.<\/p>\n<div class=\"article-paywall\">\n<p>\u201cTheir view may disable Congress from acting at all in a future emergency, if the majority of members are not able to physically gather in a single location, and if the quorum clause truly required the physical presence of a majority of each house in the same location, the House and Senate could not validly conduct business by unanimous consent or voice vote without majority of members physically present,\u201d Janda said.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAny such holding would immediately call into question the many statutes they\u2019ve been enacted under those circumstances, and the validity of the countless executive and judicial nominees confirmed under those circumstances,\u201d he said. \u201cThe constitution does not require those extreme and destabilizing results.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The judges pressed Janda on claims that members of Congress do not need to be physically present to fulfill the quorum requirement if one of the chambers opens the door to proxy voting. When asked directly what constitutes a quorum for the House of Representatives, Janda said it would be whatever the House defines in its rules.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThey certainly get to define presence to the extent that that\u2019s necessary for a quorum,\u201d Janda said.<\/p>\n<p>One of the judges also pressed Janda on a past example of the House using proxy voting, such as the proxy voting implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 to 2023.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThere\u2019s nothing to support your theory with an actual living, breathing instance of this being done from about 1789 till 2023, there\u2019s no historical example of a proxy being sent in for presence,\u201d one of the judges said, questioning Janda\u2019s assertion that the proxy scheme was a lawful way to reach a quorum.<\/p>\n<p>The House of Representatives <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/2744713\/mccarthy-marks-end-of-proxy-voting-lawmakers-have-to-show-up-for-their-vote-to-count\/\">eliminated<\/a> the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/house-republicans-fire-shots-at-mcconnell-in-court-fight-over-proxy-voting-washington-examiner\/\" title=\"... Republicans fire shots at McConnell in ... fight over ... - Washington Examiner\">pandemic-era proxy voting rules<\/a>, implemented under Pelosi at the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, when the GOP gained control of the lower chamber of Congress in January 2023. Republicans decried the proxy-voting rule as unconstitutional and made it one of the first things axed upon taking control of the chamber. But despite the end of the practice, it has remained a hotly contested topic years later.<\/p>\n<p>Although proxy voting is barred, some members of the House have been <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/house\/3317575\/house-proxy-voting-debate-reignites-byron-donalds-accused-voter-fraud\/\" type=\"link\" id=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/house\/3317575\/house-proxy-voting-debate-reignites-byron-donalds-accused-voter-fraud\/\">accused of still casting votes<\/a> on behalf of other members in some instances. Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) faced heat in February 2025 for allegedly allowing a colleague to vote on his behalf for multiple bills while he was simultaneously taping an episode of <em>Real Time with Bill Maher<\/em> in California. Later in 2025, a bipartisan coalition attempted to force a vote on a bill that would have allowed new parents to vote remotely, but House GOP leadership worked out a deal to <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/house\/3371704\/luna-johnson-deal-proxy-voting-feud\/\" type=\"link\" id=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/house\/3371704\/luna-johnson-deal-proxy-voting-feud\/\">allow for \u201cvote-pairing\u201d<\/a> instead of the proxy voting bill, which House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) argued would be unconstitutional.<\/p>\n<p>The judges also questioned Texas Solicitor General William Peterson over his arguments that the House is prevented from using proxy voting under the quorum clause, questioning if physical presence is needed to satisfy that requirement.<\/p>\n<p><strong><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4558753\/trump-mandatory-detention-policy-poised-supreme-court-review\/\" type=\"link\" id=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4558753\/trump-mandatory-detention-policy-poised-supreme-court-review\/\">TRUMP\u2019S MANDATORY DETENTION POLICY APPEARS POISED FOR SUPREME COURT REVIEW <\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The panel did not indicate when it would issue a ruling, but regardless of where the judges land, the losing side would have to appeal to the Supreme Court if it seeks a reversal of the forthcoming ruling.<\/p>\n<p>A federal district court sided with Texas, while a three-judge panel on the 5th Circuit sided with the federal government. During arguments, one of the judges predicted that if they side with Texas, the Supreme Court will likely have to take up the case.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A 5th Circuit panel grilled DOJ lawyers over Texas\u2019 challenge to pandemic proxy voting in Congress<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2638,"featured_media":2601824,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/AP22311477397720.jpg?w=696","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[7076,79547,32304,37612,38422],"class_list":["post-2601823","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-doj","tag-fifth-circuit","tag-house-of-representatives","tag-legal-challenge","tag-proxy-voting"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/AP22311477397720.jpg?w=696","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2601823","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2638"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2601823"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2601823\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2601827,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2601823\/revisions\/2601827"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2601824"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2601823"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2601823"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2601823"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}