The United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is poised to decide whether the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) was enacted Constitutionally. Not only does this case affect the future of pregnant workers and their families—it has far reaching consequences for our national security and legislative functioning.
In February 2024, a federal court in Texas struck down the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act as applied to Texas state government employees, baselessly claiming that its passage exceeded Congress’s constitutional authority. In August 2025, a 3-judge panel of the 5th Circuit overturned that ruling, determining that the law was passed constitutionally and keeping the law intact. But in January 2026, the entire 5th Circuit granted a petition to rehear the case en banc and erased its previous order upholding the law—indicating that a majority of the full court is open to revisiting the constitutionality of the law.
A broad array of stakeholders have submitted amicus briefs defending the Constitutionality of the PWFA. Some of these briefs speak to the critical need for the PWFA, or to the importance of other legislation enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act. Others explain that the Constitution provides Congress with the power to set its own rules, including the rules authorizing the means by which House members vote, and provide historical examples illustrating Congress’s proper exercise of this authority. Finally, many of the briefs outline potentially dire implications for our national security and legislative functioning if the district court’s decision stands.
A Better Balance and March of Dimes:
A Better Balance and March of Dimes make the case that the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is an essential protection for the health and wellbeing of pregnant workers and their babies, which Congress was well within its constitutional authority to enact. Being able to access pregnancy accommodations on the job—such as access to water breaks, light-duty lifting, or chairs to sit on—plays a critical role in protecting pregnancies and reducing the risk of devastating outcomes like miscarriage. The law has already been an unparalleled success: a 2025 study found that the law reduced miscarriages nationwide by an estimated 9.6%. Eradicating these protections will put women in the position of needing to choose between protecting their pregnancies and their paychecks.
Former National Security Officials:
A coalition of former national security officials including former Secretaries of Defense Willliam Cohen, former CIA and NSA head General Michael Hayden, and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, submitted an amicus brief addressing the national security implications of the District Court’s ruling. As detailed in the brief, a national security crisis could disrupt our government’s ability to carry out its essential functions. Amici explain why it is imperative that Congress be free to act when faced with such a crisis regardless of whether its Members are able to physically convene in a single location.
Rep. Nadler and Ranking Members DeLauro, McGovern, Morelle, and Raskin:
Five members of the House of Representatives, including lead PWFA sponsor Rep. Nadler and Ranking Members Raskin (Judiciary Committee), DeLauro (Appropriations Committee), McGovern (Rules Committee), and Morelle (House Administration Committee), submitted a non-partisan amicus brief explaining that Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 with a quorum as required by the Constitution and that the district court’s decision undermines Congress’s ability to shape its own rules, jeopardizes national security interests, and disenfranchises millions of constituents. Their brief states, “[T]he very purpose underlying the Quorum Clause — i.e., to prevent a minority of congressional members from dictating legislative matters — would be undermined by a ruling that effectively negates a law that was properly passed by a majority of actively participating members.” The law firm of Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP authored the members’ brief.
Senator Mitch McConnell submitted a brief arguing that, whatever the merits of proxy voting, courts may not intrude on Congress’s constitutional authority to set its own rules. “The core question in this case is whether the courts can review the internal affairs of Congress, when such affairs are textually committed to each house by the Constitution. They cannot.” In addition, Sen. McConnell warned that the district court decision threatens Congress’s ability to conduct business on a day-to-day basis, jeopardizes Congress’s ability to act in moments of national emergency, and imperils key legislation enacted in the Consolidated Appropriations Act. William Barr, former U.S. Attorney General, authored Sen. McConnell’s brief.
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA):
The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) wrote to explain that allowing the district court’s ruling to stand would imperil lifesaving veterans’ legislation passed as part of the challenged Consolidated Appropriations Act. “[V]eterans who have risked their lives for this country will lose out on critical educational benefits,” “endure financially devastating debt collections,” or “be unable to access the mental healthcare and suicide prevention services they need and deserve,” IAVA’s brief explained. The law firm of Steptoe LLP authored IAVA’s brief.
Legal Scholars and Constitutional Law Experts:
Legal historians, legislation scholars, and Constitution experts — who have written extensively on the Constitution’s original meaning and its interpretation, with special focus on congressional powers — filed a brief presenting the overwhelming historical evidence that the proxy voting rule Congress used to pass the Consolidated Appropriations Act was constitutional. “As much today as in 1789, debates over legislative procedure belong in Congress — not in court,” they wrote. The law firm Hogan Lovells LLP authored the scholars’ brief.
Texas Employment Lawyers Association:
The Texas Employment Lawyers Association submitted a brief, authored by attorney members of the association, explaining the legal landscape in Texas prior to passage of the PWFA and the dearth of legal protections for pregnant workers in the state. It describes the PWFA’s important protections for Texans and shares the experiences of many workers from the state. “The import of these new rights cannot be overstated — they provide critical protection to pregnant workers and new parents in Texas that allow them to remain employed in supportive workplaces while growing their families.”
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME):
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) is a union of approximately 1.4 million members employed in the public service across the nation, including nearly 10,000 members who work for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice as correctional officers, administrative clerks, maintenance staff, food services staff, laundry managers, and parole officers. These members are employees of the State of Texas and nearly half are female. They have been without the protection of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act since the district court entered its injunction. AFSCME has a strong interest in its members’ continued protection under the PWFA, which strengthens their ability to perform and remain serving in their critical public safety positions.