The Texas Supreme Court ruled on Friday that state Attorney General Ken Paxton did not have to testify in a whistleblower lawsuit brought by some of his employees, reversing a lower court decision.
Because Paxton's office does not dispute any of the issues in the suit, which is related to failed impeachment charges brought against him, and he agrees to any judgement in the case, there is not a compelling reason for his testimony.
“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,” a statement from Paxton’s office said.
The employees say they were improperly fired or forced out because they told the FBI that Paxton misused his office to protect a friend, who was also a campaign donor.
The donor was in turn helping Paxton hide an extramarital affair, they further allege.
Texas Governor and the legislature have said they want Paxton to testify before deciding on a settlement amount.
But the supreme court acknowledged that Paxton's testimony and that of others could be used improperly by the legislature.
A preliminary deal included an apology from Paxton to the employees for calling them "rogue employees" along with a $3.3 million settlement, but the sticking point was that Paxton wanted the state to pay the settlement.
The House balked at that plan, and started investigating him. Eventually, they impeached him, but he was acquitted in the Senate trial.
Paxton has consistently denied the charges against him and called them politically motivated.
The settlement, which Paxton agreed to in January, does not involve him admitting to any wrongdoing.
That should have been the end of the litigation, but the judge has let it drag on for almost a year.
Paxton's office slammed the lower court ruling that was overturned as an "effort to prolong costly, politically-motivated litigation against the Agency has wasted public resources for years."
The office characterized the judge's actions as an "apparent effort to prolong the political charade and interfere with the OAG’s day-to-day business."
