Texas Supreme Court denies Ken Paxton's request to block testimony in whistleblower lawsuit

AUSTIN (Nexstar) — The Texas Supreme Court denied Attorney General Ken Paxton's request to block his deposition Friday in a lawsuit from his former top-ranking deputies, who allege Paxton wrongfully terminated them after reporting him to federal authorities.

The Office of Attorney General (OAG) filed an emergency motion with the Texas Supreme Court on Monday, asking the high court to quash the whistleblowers' request for oral depositions, or sworn testimony, which was mandated by a lower Travis County court in December.

This will likely be the first time Paxton will be compelled to answer questions about his former top deputies' allegations that he engaged in bribery and abused his power to help Nate Paul — an Austin real estate developer.

Nate Paul was also served a subpoena and deposition notice on Wednesday, according to court documents.

Attorneys for the whistleblowers celebrated the high court's decision Friday.

“We look forward to the opportunity to finally place the attorney general and the other witnesses under oath and question them about the facts in our lawsuit," the whistleblower attorneys said in a joint statement.

Nexstar reached out to the OAG, as well as the outside lawyer hired to litigate this case for the state, but did not immediately hear back.

The Texas Supreme Court also denied Paxton's request to dismiss the lawsuit altogether. Justices on the high court did not give reasoning for their decision. However, Justices John Devine and Jimmy Blacklock dissented, asking the lower courts to reconsider the "necessity for, and scope of, those depositions only after depositions of lower-ranking officials have taken place."

Travis County District Judge Jan Soifer's December order requires the depositions of Paxton and three of his current top aides to take place by Feb. 9 or earlier.

This is all part of a lawsuit stemming from 2020, after former high-ranking officials in Paxton’s were fired after reported Paxton to the FBI. The employees were whistleblowers and later sued for wrongful termination.

It had been previously settled in February 2023, after all parties agreed the state would pay the whistleblowers $3.3 million to end the case. When Paxton asked the Legislature to fund the settlement, a House committee initiated an investigation of the whistleblowers’ claims. That probe triggered Paxton’s impeachment and temporary suspension from office over the summer before Paxton was acquitted of all 20 articles of impeachment in the September Senate trial.

In a December news release after Judge Soifer's order, the OAG said the deposition order "would cripple the state's ability to settle lawsuits," arguing repeated court rulings to allow the whistleblower lawsuit to continue is ignoring their previous agreement to settle.

"The trial court ignored the mediated agreement and has permitted these litigants to seek unlimited and unprecedented discovery in an already-settled case. Doing so hurts all Texans," OAG said in a December statement. "It vitiates the certainty litigants should expect in settlement negotiations, and it burdens the judicial system by forcing courts and parties to spend time, money, and resources continuing to litigate their claims—the very costs most litigants pursue settlement to avoid."

The whistleblower plaintiffs are seeking depositions of Paxton, First Assistant Attorney General Brent Webster, Chief of Staff Lesley French Henneke, and Senior Advisor to Attorney General Michelle Smith.

This story is developing, check back for updates.