AUSTIN, Texas — The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of Assistant Attorney General Brent Webster by dismissing a lawsuit that aimed to strip him of his law license. This lawsuit accused Webster and Attorney General Ken Paxton of misconduct related to their challenge of the 2020 presidential election results.
In its decision, the court concurred with an earlier judgment by a Williamson County district judge, asserting that removing Webster’s license would infringe on the Texas Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine. The district court’s ruling was initially overturned by the Eighth Court of Appeals in 2023, but the Texas Supreme Court reinstated it.
Writing for the majority, Justice Evan A. Young emphasized that typically, only the court where a lawsuit is initially filed should scrutinize the accuracy of attorneys’ statements and administer any ensuing discipline. Justices Jeff Boyd and Debra Lehrmann offered dissenting opinions in the case.
The controversy began when Paxton and Webster filed legal proceedings in 2020 to dispute the election outcomes in key battleground states — Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. They contended that these states had unlawfully altered election procedures due to the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby casting doubt on the election results. However, their claims were promptly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in December of the same year.
Following their federal court defeat, the State Bar of Texas initiated an unprecedented legal challenge against Paxton and Webster. Their lawsuit was one of the few instances where a state bar sought disciplinary action against sitting state officials for their conduct in electoral litigation.
While the Texas Supreme Court’s recent ruling resolved Webster’s case, it did not impact the ongoing proceedings against Paxton. In response to the court’s decision, Paxton staunchly defended his actions, stating his office was persecuted for protecting national elections, and pledged to continue standing for “what is right.”
Webster, in support of Paxton’s remarks, indicated that the outgoing Trump administration could now focus on their agenda without this legal distraction.
Regarding the outcome, Lowell Brown of the State Bar of Texas withheld comments until further discussions with the Chief Disciplinary Counsel could be held.
This legal tussle unfolds against the backdrop of a nation grappling to solidify trust in its electoral processes, especially following contentious elections. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores ongoing debates about the boundaries of legal challenges in political disputes and the role of attorneys in these conflicts.
Editorial note: This article was generated using automation technology. Details including names, facts, or circumstances may not be accurate. For corrections, retractions, or to remove an article, please contact [email protected].