Trump-appointed Judge David Joseph delivered a resounding victory for pro-life advocates, striking down Biden-era federal rules that would have forced employers to accommodate abortion-related time off under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
Key Takeaways
- U.S. District Judge David Joseph ruled that the EEOC exceeded its authority by including abortion in workplace accommodations under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
- The judge determined that Congress deliberately excluded abortion from the 2022 law, preserving employers’ religious and moral freedoms.
- This ruling follows a similar decision by Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk invalidating EEOC guidance on transgender workers, marking another conservative judicial victory.
- The decision aligns with President Trump’s administration’s broader efforts to roll back federal support for abortion.
- While the abortion portion was struck down, other pregnancy-related protections in the PWFA remain intact.
Judge Rules EEOC Overstepped Its Authority
The Louisiana federal court ruling marks a significant setback for abortion advocates who sought to expand workplace protections to include abortion under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). Judge David Joseph, appointed by President Trump, determined that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) had no legal authority to require employers to provide time off or accommodations for workers seeking abortions. The judge’s decision specifically targeted the EEOC’s interpretation of the PWFA, which was passed in December 2022 to strengthen protections for pregnant workers but did not explicitly mention abortion.
“The EEOC has exceeded its statutory authority to implement the PWFA and, in doing so, both unlawfully expropriated the authority of Congress and encroached upon the sovereignty of the Plaintiff States under basic principles of federalism,” Judge Joseph wrote in his ruling.
Joseph emphasized that if Congress had intended to include such a contentious issue as abortion within the law’s protections, “it would have spoken clearly” on the matter. This reasoning reflects a strict textualist interpretation that has become a hallmark of conservative judicial philosophy. The case was brought by attorneys general from Louisiana and Mississippi, along with religious organizations concerned about being forced to accommodate procedures that violate their moral and religious beliefs.
Victory for Conservative States and Religious Freedom
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill celebrated the ruling as “a win for Louisiana and for life.” The decision represents a significant victory for conservative lawmakers and religious groups that have consistently opposed federal mandates they view as infringing upon religious liberty and state sovereignty. The EEOC’s regulation, which took effect in June 2024, had included abortion among conditions eligible for workplace accommodations, prompting immediate legal challenges from multiple states and religious organizations.
Judge David Joseph of the Western District of Louisiana found that the EEOC overstepped its authority under the statute and ordered the Commission to remove the abortion provision from the rules.
Notably, the ruling invalidates only the abortion-related section of the EEOC’s regulation, preserving broader protections for pregnant workers. This targeted approach allows the law to continue fulfilling its primary purpose of protecting pregnant women in the workplace while removing what conservatives view as an overreach into abortion policy. The decision also aligns with President Trump’s administration’s consistent stance on limiting federal support for abortion, including enforcing the Hyde Amendment and reinstating the Mexico City Policy.
Part of a Broader Judicial Pushback
The Louisiana ruling mirrors another recent decision by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas, who struck down an EEOC rule regarding transgender workers. Both cases highlight a pattern of federal judges, particularly those appointed by President Trump, reigning in what they perceive as regulatory overreach by federal agencies. In the transgender case, Judge Kacsmaryk ruled that the EEOC had exceeded its authority by creating mandatory standards with legal consequences regarding pronoun usage and bathroom access.
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” Kacsmaryk wrote in his ruling.
Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation, which was involved in challenging the transgender rule, praised the decision, stating that “the Biden EEOC tried to compel businesses — and the American people — to deny basic biological truth.” The parallel rulings demonstrate a consistent judicial philosophy that emphasizes strict statutory interpretation and rejects agency attempts to expand regulations beyond explicit congressional authorization, particularly on culturally divisive issues like abortion and gender identity.
Future Implications
The ruling has significant implications for both employers and employees across the country. Without the EEOC’s abortion provision, employers are not required to accommodate abortion under the PWFA unless Congress explicitly amends the law to include it – a development considered highly unlikely under the current administration. Acting EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas had previously opposed including abortion in the rules, suggesting potential internal disagreement within the commission itself about the scope of its authority.
Current acting EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas went on record earlier this year expressing her desire to amend the rules to remove the abortion provision.
As similar lawsuits continue to make their way through the courts, including one led by 17 states, the legal landscape surrounding workplace protections continues to evolve. The Justice Department’s approach to defending these EEOC positions will likely shift decisively under President Trump’s administration, potentially leading to further reversals of controversial regulatory interpretations from previous years. These rulings collectively represent a significant realignment of federal policy toward a more conservative interpretation of statutory authority and religious liberty protections.
