Whistleblower lawsuit against Ken Paxton can continue, Travis County judge rules

A long-running wrongful termination lawsuit against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton — which prompted his impeachment and drew interest from federal law enforcement authorities — can continue despite multiple attempts by the state's top lawyer to have it thrown out, a District Court judge ruled Wednesday in rejecting a motion to conclude the case.

Travis County state District Court Judge Catherine Mauzy's ruling, which comes a day after the Texas Supreme Court issued an emergency ruling to temporarily delay Paxton's deposition in the case, lets the lawsuit brought by four former agency employees continue as the state's high court considers Paxton's argument seeking to block his sworn testimony. Paxton had been scheduled to be deposed Thursday.

Arguing in District Court on Wednesday, Bill Helfand, Paxton's attorney, said there is no reason for the case to proceed as the attorney general is ready to accept a final ruling in the suit and comply with any settlement agreement the court issues.

"My client is prepared, and has authorized me, to come here and concede the entry of a judgment of liability," Helfand said, maintaining his argument made in previous court filings that continuing the case is an unnecessary waste of resources.

Addressing the court for about 20 minutes, Helfand pushed back on the whistleblowers' argument that Paxton's testimony is warranted to adjudicate the case and inform a possible future decision by the Legislature on whether or not to fund a potential settlement.

Last year, the Texas House rejected Paxton's request to pay a $3.3 million settlement agreement with the whistleblowers, and the lower chamber instead launched an investigation into the former employees' allegations of bribery and abuse of office. The House overwhelmingly voted to impeach the attorney general on 20 charges. Ultimately, the Texas Senate, which held an impeachment trial, acquitted Paxton.

"There's no reason not to proceed with a judgment because there's nothing else to be done in this case that the plaintiffs need to get a judgment because my client is conceding the entry of the judgment," Helfand said.

Before rejecting Paxton's motion for a final judgement, which is meant to circumvent the District Court order compelling him and three of his deputies to be deposed in hopes of avoiding a future trial, Mauzy was skeptical of Helfand's argument that the attorney general is both willing to concede to a final verdict and also maintain his innocence.

"Those seem to me to be contradictory positions," Mauzy said.

TJ Turner, an attorney for the whistleblowers — Paxton's former top deputies who say they were fired after approaching the FBI with concerns that their boss might have acted improperly in helping a since-indicted campaign donor, Nate Paul — called Helfand's argument the latest ploy to keep Paxton off the witness stand.

"This is just the latest parlor trick in OAG's quiver that they've deployed to avoid what the Attorney General fears most, and that's testifying under oath," Turner said, referring to the Office of the Attorney General.

Turner, successfully making the argument to reject Paxton's motion, said the whistleblowers are entitled to craft a full record in court of their complaint against Paxton, and that Paxton does not have the right to accept a judgement and continue to deny any fault in the case.

"This amended answer they filed specifically denies our allegations from one side of their mouth, while saying they will no longer contest them from the other," Turner said.

In post-hearing comments to the media, Turner said the whistleblowers' case in District Court is allowed to continue as the Supreme Court deliberates Paxton's appeal about being deposed. No additional hearings in Travis County were scheduled after Mauzy's ruling Wednesday.

Outside of the court settings, the whistleblower case has gained the attention of national Republicans, including former President Donald Trump, who on Tuesday lobbied for the state's high court to stop the legal action against Paxton.

More: Is Texas' ban on gender-affirming care for minors constitutional? Supreme Court hears case

"Enough time and money has been wasted forcing Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, to defend himself, instead of defending our broken Southern Border, which is under continual siege," Trump posted on social media Tuesday. "He has already been fully acquitted in the Impeachment Hoax."

Additionally, America First Legal Foundation, which is led by Stephen Miller, a former senior adviser in the Trump administration, filed an amicus brief in the ongoing lawsuit Tuesday.

The foundation argues in its filing to the Supreme Court that other attorney general's office employees should be deposed before Paxton and that discovery of facts in the case should be further limited.

"To rule otherwise here invites politics into the courts and potentially added unpredictability in employment and commercial disputes," the filing reads.

Turner, who is representing the whistleblowers, brushed off the out-of-state opinions on the lawsuit.

"I have no comments fit for print, other than we'll take care of Texas in Texas," Turner said.

The whistleblowers' attorneys will now focus on responding to the Supreme Court's emergency order to temporarily halt the deposition, which is due by the end of February, Turner said.

When asked what would happen if Paxton refuses to take the stand upon the court's directive, Turner said the whistleblowers will file a contempt of court motion and continue making their case one way or another.

"If they don't want to show up the day of trial, fine," Turner said. "We'll put on our case."

This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: As SCOTX mulls Paxton's deposition, lawsuit can continue, judge rules