Texas Supreme Court rejects Paxton appeal to halt whistleblower lawsuit, deposition

The Texas Supreme Court on Friday rejected embattled Attorney General Ken Paxton's request to block a state District Court's ruling compelling his deposition in a yearslong wrongful termination lawsuit that ignited his impeachment last year.

With the court's divided ruling, Paxton and three of his top deputies will be forced to testify under oath about the situation that led to his former aides' exit from the attorney general's office after they reported to federal authorities concerns that Paxton might have abused his office to lend favorable legal assistance to a friend and campaign donor, former Austin real estate developer Nate Paul.

In his appeal to the state's high court Monday, Paxton sought a ruling to stop the whistleblowers from continuing to seek a settlement and to overturn the Travis County state District Court's mandate that his deposition occur by Feb. 9.

"This afternoon, the Supreme Court of Texas denied an OAG emergency motion to prevent the deposition of Attorney General Ken Paxton and other high-level executives in a lawsuit that alleges Paxton violated the Texas Whistleblower Act," the court said in a social media post Friday evening announcing the ruling.

More: Gov. Greg Abbott denies he's advocating shooting migrants crossing Texas-Mexico border

Paxton has not publicly commented on the whistleblowers' allegations that he abused his office to help Paul — who was then the target of a separate federal financial crimes investigation — or other concerns raised during his impeachment trial in the Texas Senate, where he was acquitted of all charges.

Paxton's office did not immediately respond to an American-Statesman request for comment Friday.

In dissenting from the majority of the court, Justices John Phillip Devine and Jimmy Blacklock said they would have stayed Paxton's challenge to prevent his deposition along with those of First Assistant Attorney General Brent Webster, Paxton's chief of staff Lesley French Henneke and senior adviser Michelle Smith.

The justices "would instruct the district court to reconsider the necessity for, and scope of, those depositions only after depositions of lower-ranking officials have taken place," the brief ruling states.

More: Texas is preparing for arctic blast. Here's how state is helping cities, counties respond

Paxton's legal team largely made the same argument in December to District Court Judge Jan Soifer, saying that Paxton's testimony should be deferred and "less intrusive means of discovery" should be prioritized.

Soifer rejected that argument, ruling that there is "good cause" to compel Paxton's testimony and that the whistleblowers should not be bound to a previous $3.3 million settlement that fell apart after the Legislature refused to pay the agreement, and instead the Texas House initiated an investigation, which led to the lower chamber's overwhelming vote to impeach the attorney general on 20 charges, including for bribery and abuse of office.

Soifer's ruling, which has now been reaffirmed by the Third Court of Appeals and the state Supreme Court, allows for the four former agency employees who filed the lawsuit to continue seeking a settlement agreement and compels Paxton's testimony.

After the ruling that could force Paxton's first comments under oath about the situation, Tom Nesbitt, an attorney for Blake Brickman, a former senior staff member in Paxton's office, said the attorney general has evaded efforts to compel his testimony based on "his corrupt conduct."

"Ken Paxton hid out from his impeachment trial and was excused from testifying because he invoked his right not to incriminate himself," Nesbitt said in a statement Friday. "And he has played so long for delay in this case because he is terrified to answer questions about his corrupt conduct. He should be."

This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Ken Paxton to be deposed by Feb. 9, Texas Supreme Court says