5th Circuit Hears En Banc Arguments in Texas Lawsuit Over Constitutionality of House Proxy Voting Rule

Judges pressed Janda on whether members of Congress need to be physically present to fulfill the quorum requirement when a chamber allows proxy voting.

When asked what constitutes a quorum for the House of Representatives, Janda said it would be whatever the House defines in its rules. “They certainly get to define presence to the extent that that’s necessary for a quorum,” he said. One judge noted there is no historical example of proxy voting for presence from about 1789 till 2023.

The judges also questioned Texas Solicitor General William Peterson on whether physical presence is needed to satisfy the quorum clause. A federal district court sided with Texas in the lawsuit, while a three-judge panel on the 5th Circuit sided with the federal government.

One of the judges predicted that if the 5th Circuit sides with Texas, the Supreme Court will likely have to take up the case.

The panel did not indicate when it would issue a ruling. Despite the formal end of proxy voting, the practice has remained contentious. Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) faced criticism in February 2025 for allegedly allowing a colleague to vote on his behalf while he was in California taping Real Time with Bill Maher.

Later in 2025, a bipartisan coalition attempted to force a vote on a bill that would have allowed new parents to vote remotely. House GOP leadership substituted “vote-pairing” instead of the remote voting bill after House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) argued that proxy voting would be unconstitutional. Washington Examiner reported the details of Tuesday’s arguments before the full 5th Circuit.