Ruling Overturned: Texas AG Ken Paxton Not Required to Testify in Lawsuit

The Texas Supreme Court ruled on Friday to overturn a lower court decision requiring Attorney General Ken Paxton to testify in a whistleblower lawsuit linked to the impeachment charges brought against him in 2023.

The court stated that Paxton’s office does not dispute any aspect of the lawsuit filed by four former employees and has agreed to the judgment in the case.

“In a major win for the State of Texas, the state Supreme Court has sided with Attorney General Paxton against former OAG employees whose effort to prolong costly, politically motivated litigation against the agency has wasted public resources for years,” Paxton’s office said in a statement.

An attorney for one of the plaintiffs declined to comment, and another did not respond to requests for comment.

The lawsuit stems from allegations by former employees that they were improperly fired or forced out after reporting to the FBI that Paxton was misusing his office to protect a friend and campaign donor. The donor allegedly helped Paxton conceal an extramarital affair, according to the whistleblowers.

The Supreme Court’s decision noted that the Texas governor and Legislature had expressed a desire to hear testimony from witnesses before approving funds to settle the case. Forcing Paxton and others, including First Assistant Attorney General Brent Webster, Chief of Staff Lesley French Henneke, and senior advisor Michelle Smith, to testify prematurely could have impacted legislative decisions regarding appropriations, the court said.

A preliminary settlement had been reached in which Paxton agreed to apologize for labeling the whistleblowers as “rogue” employees, settle the case for $3.3 million, and request state funding to cover the payment. However, the Texas House rejected the funding request and launched its investigation, ultimately leading to Paxton’s impeachment. The state Senate later acquitted him after a trial.

The Supreme Court’s ruling is conditional upon the trial court adhering to its decision, although the justices expressed confidence that the trial court would comply.

source