/>i
On January 14, 2026, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a split decision reached by its panel that had allowed enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) against the state of Texas as an employer. The full Fifth Circuit panel will now rehear the case en banc and decide whether the U.S. Constitution required congressional lawmakers’ physical presence in voting to pass the PWFA.
Quick Hits
- On February 27, 2024, a federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas blocked enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) against the State of Texas as an employer, holding that the U.S. Congress passed the law—part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023—in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s quorum requirements.
- On August 15, 2025, after the federal government appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, a three-judge panel reached a split decision, ultimately reversing the district court’s order and holding that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—the agency charged with enforcement of the PWFA—could enforce the PWFA against the State of Texas.
- Now, an en banc panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the case and decide. It is likely that the issue will ultimately end up before the Supreme Court of the United States.
The PWFA, which went into effect on June 27, 2023, requires employers to provide reasonable accommodation to workers for known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, “unless such [a] covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business.”
In late 2022, the U.S. Congress passed the PWFA as part of a funding package under consideration, with only 205 members of the U.S. House of Representatives voting in person in favor of it. The State of Texas then sued the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and other federal agencies, arguing that because only 205 members of Congress were physically present to vote on the PWFA, the House of Representatives had lacked a valid quorum. Two hundred twenty-six votes were cast by House members who voted by proxy in favor of the law. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed, holding that Congress had passed the PWFA using an unconstitutional congressional rule implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic, which permitted non-present congressional members to vote by proxy and thus be counted toward quorum requirements.
The Fifth Circuit panel’s majority disagreed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, finding that the vote-by-proxy rule was not unconstitutional and that congressional lawmakers had not needed to vote in person to reach a quorum. In dissent, the panel’s minority found that the vote-by-proxy rule was unconstitutional and that Congress had exceeded its authority when passing the PWFA without a quorum.
Now, a full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals panel will decide.
