2026-05-12T08:00:51.170Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
作者：蒂尔尼·斯尼德
发布时间：2026年5月12日，美国东部时间凌晨4:00
在这张2021年2月的照片中，众议院议长南希·佩洛西与其他众议院民主党领袖在华盛顿特区举行新闻发布会。
布伦丹·斯米亚洛夫斯基/法新社/盖蒂图片社
多项退伍军人福利计划、对9/11遇难者家属的拨款、政府设备禁用TikTok的禁令，以及国会针对2021年1月6日国会山骚乱修订的总统选举认证规则，都因一起质疑民主党主导的美国众议院如何依靠代理投票通过一项大规模新冠时代拨款法案的诉讼而岌岌可危。
这起诉讼源于共和党多年来对时任议长南希·佩洛西允许议员在疫情期间远程投票的反对。得克萨斯州总检察长肯·帕克斯顿提起的这起诉讼，正由一家以采纳甚至比美国保守派最高法院更激进的右翼论点而闻名的上诉法院审理。
帕克斯顿目前正在竞选参议员，而参议院日常立法通常无需议员亲自到场。米奇·麦康奈尔——这位曾领导帕克斯顿如今想要加入的参议院的肯塔基州共和党人——正支持国会使用代理投票的权力，尽管这位肯塔基州共和党人曾在公共卫生危机期间批评民主党使用这一做法。
帕克斯顿提起诉讼的得克萨斯州偏远地区的一名联邦法官此前在该案中裁定，远程投票在国会通过1.7万亿美元拨款法案过程中所起的作用违反了宪法。尽管美国第五巡回上诉法院的一个三人法官小组推翻了这一裁决，但全院法院以驳回该小组意见并同意重审此案的方式，暗示了其对得克萨斯州论点的支持，口头辩论将于周二举行。
相关竖版视频 CNN 沃伦询问特朗普提名的美联储主席人选谁赢得了2020年大选
这起诉讼最初仅针对涉及孕妇工作场所 accommodations 的一项法律条款。但如果上诉法院同意帕克斯顿的论点，将创建一项先例，使这项大规模拨款法案的任何条款都容易在覆盖路易斯安那州、得克萨斯州和密西西比州的第五巡回法院受到法律挑战。如果此案最终提交至最高法院且大法官支持帕克斯顿，这一先例将在全国范围内适用。
该拨款法案中受到此案威胁的其他条款还包括：扩大低收入学龄儿童夏季餐饮项目的计划、旨在解决赛马行业兴奋剂问题的立法，以及为各州提供12个月产后医疗补助覆盖的永久性选项。特朗普政府继续由拜登政府时期的司法部为众议院通过该法案的方式进行辩护。
麦康奈尔提交的一份法庭之友意见书显示，此案的影响甚至更为广泛。他在上诉法院表示，该诉讼的逻辑威胁到参议院通过一致同意和口头投票开展大部分业务的方式，同时邀请法院干预国会的内部规则制定。
“很多人普遍认为，众议院和参议院必须有权制定自己的内部程序，”布鲁金斯学会治理研究部副主席兼主任莫莉·雷诺兹告诉CNN，“如果国会要正常运作并履行国家事务，这两个议院必须拥有这些权力。”
代理投票政治斗争的长期余波
根据民主党控制的众议院2020年5月通过的规则，因新冠疫情不愿前往华盛顿特区或无法亲临议会投票的议员，可以指定一名在场议员代为投票。
雷诺兹表示，共和党最初大多反对这一想法，这反映了在应对病毒的力度上存在党派分歧。一些共和党人甚至起诉佩洛西和其他众议院官员。但华盛顿的联邦法院驳回了该诉讼，最高法院也拒绝受理此案。
随着时间推移，远程投票的使用方式发生了演变。包括共和党人在内的一些议员开始出于与新冠无关的原因使用代理投票，例如在家照顾新生儿或留在竞选活动中。
当共和党在2023年1月重新掌控众议院多数席位后，时任多数党领袖凯文·麦卡锡终止了这一做法——但此前即将卸任的民主党多数党在2022年圣诞节前夕通过了一项年度拨款法案，当时有226名议员通过代理投票，超过了在场的205名议员。
帕克斯顿的诉讼对该法律提出质疑，称根据宪法的法定人数条款，众议院缺乏多数议员亲自在场来通过该法案，因此违宪。一些在华盛顿提起诉讼失败的共和党人如今支持帕克斯顿的这起案件，由得克萨斯州众议员奇普·罗伊牵头提交了法庭之友意见书。罗伊是直言不讳的代理投票批评者，目前正在竞选帕克斯顿的总检察长职位。
“在危机时期，人们可能会轻易采取立法捷径或对宪法视而不见，但我们的建国者确保了不会有这样的措施得以实施，”这些共和党人写道。
帕克斯顿在得克萨斯州拉伯克提起了此案，该地区三分之二的民事案件都分配给了法官韦斯利·亨德里克斯。亨德里克斯是唐纳德·特朗普总统任命的法官，在其他备受瞩目的涉及联邦政府的案件中曾支持得克萨斯州，包括关于堕胎护理急诊室要求和气候变化法规的案件。
拜登政府时期的司法部要求将案件移交至奥斯汀或华盛顿特区，称帕克斯顿的团队存在“挑选法官”行为，并认为从程序角度看，这些地点更为合理。亨德里克斯驳回了这一请求，并最终在2024年作出有利于帕克斯顿的裁决，认定该拨款法案的通过违反了宪法的法定人数条款。
亨德里克斯的裁决仅推翻了该法律中纳入的一项较小条款——《孕妇工人公平法案》，该法案要求工作场所为孕妇提供某些便利。他得出结论认为，得克萨斯州证明了该工人权益法律对该州造成了损害，从而使该州具备诉讼资格，但他表示，帕克斯顿针对该法律其他条款的指控未达到这一程序门槛。
第五巡回法院的一个三人法官小组推翻了亨德里克斯的裁决，但今年全院第五巡回法院宣布将重审此案，这一信号表明该院可能倾向于支持得克萨斯州。
帕克斯顿的办公室和司法部未回应CNN的置评请求。
“法定人数条款关注的是参与，而非实际到场，”司法部在一份法庭简报中表示。
广泛的影响
尽管上诉中仅针对孕妇工人条款，但第五巡回法院若裁定其通过违宪，将为挑战这项大规模拨款法案的任何其他条款打开诉讼大门。
从实际情况来看，诉讼当事人起诉已拨付资金的政府项目会遇到障碍。但年终拨款法案通常包含各种与资金无关的立法条款，此次法案也不例外。
其1600多页的立法文本中，超过一半内容涉及拨款程序之外的法律修订。其中包括《选举计数改革法案》，国会在2021年1月6日国会山骚乱后起草该法案，以明确副总统在国会选举认证中仅具有仪式性角色。
法案还包含一系列退伍军人支持法案，加强对前军人的医疗服务，并保护他们免受掠夺性债务催收程序的影响。法案中还包括《9/11遇难者家属公平法案》，为该恐怖袭击遇难者家属的特定赔偿提供便利。拨款法案中还纳入了退休储蓄规则的重大修订，以及对2021年法案的修订，该法案设立了赛马诚信与安全管理局，以回应另一项认定反兴奋剂措施违宪的法院裁决。
该拨款法案还设立了三个临时法官职位，引发了人们的疑问：任何针对该拨款法案合宪性的先例，将如何被用来挑战这些法官的裁决。
未来的潜在影响
正如亨德里克斯的裁决所指出的，2023年的拨款法案是众议院在疫情期间允许远程投票期间，唯一一次没有多数议员在场投票的法案。
在向第五巡回法院提交的简报中，帕克斯顿的办公室淡化了此案的潜在影响范围，辩称“支持该州的裁决只会影响短暂的代理投票时代的一项法律”。
尽管如此，前国家安全官员在他们自己的法庭之友意见书中写道，法院不应限制国会未来允许远程投票的能力。他们表示，这样做可能会在另一场公共卫生危机、自然灾害或恐怖袭击发生时削弱政府的运作能力。
“在数天或数周内蔓延的全国性威胁可能会阻止或严重推迟国会亲自召开会议的能力，”包括前中央情报局局长迈克尔·海登和前参谋长联席会议主席迈克尔·马伦海军上将在内的前官员团体写道。
“但即使是短暂的中断也可能是灾难性的。如果国会需要在数小时内采取行动——提高或暂停债务上限、制定或延长拨款法案，或应对迫在眉睫的国家安全威胁——无法亲自召开会议可能会引发严重的经济、外交或安全后果，”他们补充道。
此案还威胁到参议院每年数百次用于不经记录投票批准法案、决议和提名的工具。麦康奈尔在由前司法部长比尔·巴尔撰写的简报中表示，这些被称为口头投票和一致同意的程序面临的法律威胁“严重损害了参议院的日常运作”。
尽管下级法院在该案中的裁决试图将这些程序与众议院的代理投票区分开来，但麦康奈尔并不信服。
“如果没有在参议院会场无需多数议员亲自在场开展业务的程序，业务将陷入停滞，”他说。
Laws on veterans, 9/11 families and election certification face threat in proxy voting case
2026-05-12T08:00:51.170Z / CNN
By Tierney Sneed
PUBLISHED May 12, 2026, 4:00 AM ET
In this February 2021 photo, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi holds a press conference with other House Democratic leaders in Washington, DC.
Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images
Several veterans’ benefits programs, payments for 9/11 families, a ban on TikTok on government devices, and changes Congress made to how presidential elections are certified in light of the January 6 Capitol attack are all in jeopardy with a case challenging how the Democratic-led US House relied on proxy votes to pass a massive, Covid-era funding bill.
The case stems from the years-old Republican pushback to the move by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi to allow members to vote remotely during the pandemic. The lawsuit, filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, is moving forward in an appeals court known for embracing far-right arguments out of step even with the conservative US Supreme Court.
Paxton is now running for the Senate, where legislation is routinely passed without its members physically present. Sen. Mitch McConnell, who once led the chamber Paxton now seeks to join, is supporting Congress’ power to use proxy voting, even as the Kentucky Republican was critical of Democrats’ choice to do so during the public health crisis.
A federal judge in the far-flung Texas district where Paxton filed the lawsuit previously ruled in the case that the role remote voting played in Congress’ passage of a $1.7 trillion appropriations package violated the Constitution. While a three-judge panel of the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling, the full court hinted its openness to Texas’ arguments by throwing out the panel’s opinion and agreeing to rehear the case, with oral arguments on Tuesday.
Related vertical video CNN Warren asks Trump’s Fed chair nominee who won 2020 election
The case affects only a provision of the law concerning workplace accommodations for pregnant employees. But if the appeals court agrees with Paxton’s arguments, it will create a precedent making any part of the massive appropriations package vulnerable to legal challenge in the 5th Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi. If the case ultimately lands before the Supreme Court and the justices side with Paxton, such a precedent would apply nationwide.
Among the other provisions in the appropriations bill that the case endangers are an expansion of summer meal programs for low-income schoolchildren, legislation aimed at addressing doping in the horse-racing industry, and a permanent option for states to offer 12 months of postpartum Medicaid coverage. The Trump administration has continued the defense mounted by the Justice Department under President Joe Biden for how the House passed that bill.
The implications of the case are even broader, according to a friend-of-the-court brief from McConnell. The logic of the lawsuit threatens the way the Senate does much of its business by unanimous consent and voice votes, while inviting the courts to meddle with Congress’ internal rulemaking, he told the appeals court.
“The thing that you hear generally, from a lot of folks, is that the House and the Senate have to be able to set their own internal procedures,” Molly Reynolds, the vice president and director of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institute, told CNN. “Those are things that the two chambers have to have power over, if they’re going to function and conduct the business of the country.”
The long tail of a political battle over proxy voting
Under the rules adopted by the Democratic-controlled House in May 2020, lawmakers who did not want to travel to Washington, DC, or otherwise be in the chamber to vote because of Covid-19 could designate a lawmaker on the floor to vote on their behalf.
Republicans were mostly against the idea at first, a reflection of the partisan divide over how aggressively to respond to the virus, according to Reynolds. Some Republicans even sued Pelosi and other House officials. But the federal courts in DC rejected the lawsuit, and the Supreme Court declined to take it up.
As time went on, the use of remote voting evolved. Some members — including Republicans — embraced proxy voting for non-Covid-related reasons, such as using it to stay at home with a newborn child or to stay on the campaign trail.
When the GOP regained the House gavel in January 2023, then-Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy ended the practice — but not before the outgoing Democratic majority passed an annual spending bill just before Christmas 2022 with 226 members voting by proxy, outnumbering the 205 present in the chamber.
Paxton’s lawsuit challenges that law, alleging that it was unconstitutional under the Constitution’s Quorum Clause because the House lacked a majority physically present to pass the bill. Some of the same Republicans who filed the failed lawsuit in DC are now supporting Paxton in the case, with a friend-of-the-court brief led by Texas Rep. Chip Roy, a vocal proxy-voting critic who is now running for Paxton’s job.
“While it may be easy to adopt legislative shortcuts or turn a blind eye to the Constitution in times of crisis, our Framers ensured that no such measures could be taken,” the Republicans wrote.
Paxton filed the case in Lubbock, Texas, where two-thirds of all civil lawsuits are assigned to Judge Wesley Hendrix, an appointee of President Donald Trump who has sided with Texas in other high-profile cases against the federal government in matters concerning emergency room requirements for abortion care and climate change regulations.
The Justice Department under Biden asked for the case to be moved to Austin or Washington, DC, alleging “judge shopping” by Paxton’s office and arguing that those venues made more sense for procedural reasons. Hendrix rejected the request and ultimately ruled in Paxton’s favor in 2024 that the appropriations bill was passed in violation of the Constitution’s Quorum Clause.
Hendrix’s ruling invalidated only a smaller piece of legislation tucked into the law, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which requires workplaces to extend certain accommodations to pregnant employees. He concluded that Texas proved the workers’ law was harming the state in a way that gave it standing in the case, but he said Paxton’s attacks against other pieces of the law failed to meet that procedural threshold.
A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit reversed Hendrix’s ruling, but the full 5th Circuit’s announcement this year it would hear the case was a signal it may be inclined to side with Texas.
Paxton’s office and the Justice Department did not respond to CNN’s inquiries.
“The Quorum Clause focuses on participation, not on physical presence,” the Justice Department said in a court brief.
Wide-ranging implications
While only the pregnant workers provision is targeted in the appeal, a 5th Circuit ruling finding its passage unconstitutional would open the door to lawsuits challenging any other part of the massive appropriations package.
As a practical matter, litigants will run into hurdles suing over government money that has already been spent. But year-end spending packages are often stuffed with an assortment of other, non-funding-related pieces of legislation, and this law was no different.
More than half of its 1,600-plus pages of legislative text are devoted to law changes outside of the appropriations process. That includes the Electoral Count Act, which lawmakers drafted in response to the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack to clarify that vice presidents play only a ceremonial role in Congress’ certification of the election.
It also included a raft of veterans’ support bills that boosted health services for former members of the military and that protected them from predatory debt collection procedures. Also in the law was the Fairness for 9/11 Families Act, which facilitates certain payments to the families of victims of that terrorist attack. A major overhaul of rules for retirement savings was included in the appropriations package, as was a fix to the 2021 law that created the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority to respond to another court ruling finding the anti-doping measure was unconstitutional.
The appropriations bill also created three temporary judgeships, raising questions about how any precedent against the funding law’s constitutionality could be used to challenge decisions by those judges.
Potential impacts going forward
The spending package for 2023 was the only bill the House voted on while pandemic remote voting was allowed where there wasn’t a majority on the floor, as Hendrix’s opinion noted.
In its briefs with the 5th Circuit, Paxton’s office played down the potential reach of the case, arguing that “decision in favor of the State will affect only one law from the short-lived proxy-voting era.”
Still, former national security officials wrote in their own friend-of-the-court brief that courts should not constrain Congress’ ability to allow remote voting going forward. Doing so could hobble the government in the event of another public health crisis, natural disaster or terrorist attack, they said.
“Nationwide threats unfolding over the course of days or weeks could prevent or significantly delay Congress’s ability to convene in person,” wrote the group of former officials, who include ex-CIA Director Michael Hayden and Adm. Michael Mullen, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
“But even brief disruptions could be disastrous. If Congress needed to act within hours—to raise or suspend the debt ceiling, enact or extend appropriations, or respond to an imminent national security threat—an inability to convene physically could trigger severe economic, diplomatic, or security consequences,” they added.
The case also looms over the tools the Senate uses hundreds of times a year to approve bills, resolutions and nominees without a recorded vote. The legal threats to those procedures, known as voice votes and unanimous consent, “significantly impair the daily operations of the Senate,” McConnell said in his brief, which was authored by former Attorney General Bill Barr.
While the lower court’s ruling in the case tried to distinguish those procedures from House proxy voting, McConnell was not convinced.
“Without procedures for conducting business without a majority physically present on the floor of the Senate, business would grind to a halt,” he said.