Appeals court overturns order that stripped some protections from pregnant Texas state workers
The ruling was a victory for advocates of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a law that passed with bipartisan support in 2022 but quickly became embroiled in controversy over whether it covers workers seeking abortions and fertility treatments.
A federal judge last year blocked enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act for Texas state employees, ruling that its passage was unconstitutional because a majority of House members were not physically present to approve the law as part of spending package in December 2022.
In a 2-1 decision, the Fifth Circuit appeals court disagreed, finding that the law was properly passed under a COVID-19 pandemic-era Congressional rule allowing members to vote by proxy to meet the quorum requirement.
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act strengthens the rights of women to receive workplace accommodation for needs related to pregnancy and childbirth, such as time off for medical appointments and exemptions from heavy lifting. Its passage came after a decades long campaign by women's advocacy groups highlighting the struggles of pregnant workers, especially those in low-wage roles, who were routinely forced off the job after requesting accommodations.
The Texas case differed from other lawsuits that have narrowly focused on federal regulations stating that abortion, fertility treatments and birth control are medical issues requiring protection under the new law. The lawsuit, filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, instead took aim at the entirety of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, drawing opposition from Republican lawmakers including former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who defended the pandemic-era proxy voting rule.
Under the Trump administration, the Department of Justice has continued to fight Paxton's lawsuit, which if successful, could help open the door to legal challenges of other pandemic-era laws passed by proxy.
Paxton's office did not reply to emails seeking comment, and it was not clear whether he would appeal Friday's ruling. The Justice Department declined to comment.
'This is a big win for women's rights. We are really happy to see that the Fifth Circuit agreed with us that the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was passed constitutionally and will continue to fight for the PWFA to stay legal,' said Inimai Chettiar, president of a Better Balance, an advocacy group that spearheaded the campaign for passage of the law.
Texas state employees are not immediately protected, however, because the appeals court ruling doesn't become final for several weeks to give time for a possible appeal, Chettiar said.
Conservative officials and religious groups, meanwhile, have been largely successfully in challenging the regulations passed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which established that workers seeking abortions are entitled accommodations.
In May, a federal court struck down the abortion provisions of the EEOC regulations in response to lawsuits brought by states of Louisiana and Mississippi, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic University and two Catholic dioceses.
The Trump administration is almost certain to comply with that ruling. President Donald Trump in January fired two of the EEOC's democratic commissioners, paving the way for him to quickly establish a Republican majority at the agency. EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, a Republican, has signaled her support for revising the regulations, arguing the agency exceeded its authority by including not only abortion but fertility treatments and birth control as medical needs covered by the law.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Washington Post
27 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Texas Capitol evacuated after shooting threat citing ‘political situation'
The Texas Capitol was evacuated late Tuesday in response to a shooting threat that forced people — including those protesting a Republican order for police to escort Democratic lawmakers to their homes — to leave the building.


San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Netanyahu brands Australia's Albanese 'weak' over Palestinian state recognition
MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) — Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Wednesday brushed off accusations from his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu that the Australian leader is a 'weak politician who had betrayed Israel' by recognizing a Palestinian state. Netanyahu's extraordinary public rebuke came after an Aug. 11 announcement by Albanese that his government's recognition of a Palestinian state will be formalized at the United Nations General Assembly in September. The announcement was followed by tit-for-tat cancellations of Australian and Israeli visas. 'History will remember Albanese for what he is: A weak politician who betrayed Israel and abandoned Australia's Jews,' Yetanyahu posted on social media Tuesday. Albanese responded pointedly Wednesday: 'I treat leaders of other countries with respect. I engage with them in a diplomatic way.' 'I don't take these things personally,' Albanese said. 'Increasingly there is global concern and global concern because people want to see an end to the cycle of violence that we have seen for far too long. That is what Australians want to see as well.' Australian Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke further inflamed Israel's anger Monday by cancelling the visa of far-right Israeli lawmaker Simcha Rothman, a member of Netanyahu's coalition, who planned an Australian speaking tour. Rothman is a member of the Religious Zionism party, which supports continuation of the war, the mass relocation of Palestinians through what it describes as voluntary migration and the reestablishment of Jewish settlements in Gaza. Burke on Wednesday accused Netanyahu of 'lashing out' against Australia as he had done against Britain, Canada, France, Ireland, Norway and Spain over recognition of a Palestinian state. Burke denied Albanese was weak. 'Strength is not measured by how many people you can blow up or how many children you can leave hungry,' Burke told Australian Broadcasting Corp. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar retaliated Monday for Rothman's treatment by revoking visas of Australian representatives to the Palestinian Authority. Saar also told the Israeli Embassy in Australia to 'carefully examine' any official visa applications from Australia to Israel. Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong responded by accusing the Netanyahu government of isolating Israel. Alex Ryvchin, co-chief executive officer of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the nation's peak advocacy group, said the Jewish community was 'profoundly disturbed and concerned by the rapidly deteriorating state of relations' between the two countries. Australian Jews did not feel 'abandoned' by the Albanese government, rejecting Netanyahu's accusation, Ryvchin said. 'When allies speak, they should speak frankly, robustly, but also in a dignified way, and I think firing off tweets which contain elements of abuse to them," Ryvchin said. 'I don't think that's the way to operate.' Australia is an increasingly multicultural country where more than half the population was born overseas or has at least one foreign parent. There is widespread community concern over the Israel-Hamas war, indicated by tens of thousands of pro-Palestinian demonstrators marching over the Sydney Harbor Bridge earlier this month. Antisemitism has reached unprecedented levels across Australia, which the government acknowledged last year by appointing the nation's first Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Sydney lawyer Jillian Segal. The worsening bilateral relationship with Israel was spilling over into Australia's relationship with the United States, an important ally that doesn't recognize a Palestinian state, opposition leader Sussan Ley said. 'The prime minister needs to explain how he is going to get this relationship (with Israel) that he has so badly mismanaged back on track,' Ley told reporters.


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Pirro to ease prosecutions for carrying registered rifles, shotguns — calls DC law ‘violation of the Supreme Court's holdings'
Registered rifle and shotgun owners may no longer face felony charges for carrying their weapons in Washington, DC due to concerns the district's restrictive gun laws run afoul of Supreme Court rulings, US Attorney Jeanine Pirro explained Tuesday. The policy shift, first reported by the Washington Post, comes after Pirro said she received guidance from the Justice Department and solicitor general determining that DC's prohibitions on registered, but non-permitted, rifle and shotgun owners violate the Second Amendment. The DC law 'is clearly a violation of the Supreme Court's holdings,' Pirro told the Washington Post, confirming the Trump administration's memo. Advertisement 3 US Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro speaks during a press conference in Washington, DC, on Aug. 12, 2025. REUTERS The Supreme Court struck down DC's ban on handgun ownership in the home for self-defense in the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case. The high court further expanded gun rights in the 2022 NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen case, where a majority of justices determined that the Constitution protects the rights of gun owners to carry firearms in public for self-defense. In the Bruen case, the Supreme Court also found that gun laws must be 'consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.' Advertisement Pirro, a notoriously tough-on-crime former judge, was adamant that the new guidance would not impact her ability to prosecute gun crimes, and get illegal firearms off the streets of the nation's capital. 'Nothing in this memo from the Department of Justice and the Office of Solicitor General precludes the United States Attorney's Office from charging a felon with the possession of a firearm, which includes a rifle, shotgun, and attendant large capacity magazine pursuant to DC Code 22-4503,' she told the outlet. 'What it does preclude is a separate charge of possession of a registered rifle or shotgun,' she added. DC's stringent gun laws prohibit open carry and, in general, require individuals to obtain a concealed-carry permit – which are not issued for shotguns or rifles – in order to leave home with a firearm. Advertisement 3 A person carries a rifle in public during a Second Amendment protest in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on Sept. 12, 2023. AP 3 Pirro, a notoriously tough-on-crime former judge, was adamant that the new guidance would not impact her ability to prosecute gun crimes, and get illegal firearms off the streets of the nation's capital. AP Unlawfully carrying a registered long gun in DC can result in a fine and imprisonment for up to five years. Advertisement In response to a request for comment from The Post, Pirro said: 'Criminal culpability is not determined by the instruments people employ but by the intent and conduct of the actor.' 'Crimes are intentional acts and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent by my office regardless of what instruments of criminality are used,' her statement continued. 'My job is to keep this city, its citizens, its businesses, and its visitors safe from harm and I will do that to the fullest extent of the law.'