The Texas Supreme Court has sided with a top aide to Attorney General Ken Paxton in an ethics lawsuit over alleged false statements about Joe Biden’s 2020 win.
In a 7-2 decision Tuesday, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that First Assistant Attorney General Brent Webster could not be disciplined for allegedly misleading the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the 2020 presidential results.
The decision is a huge win for Webster and Paxton, his boss, who were both sued and threatened with disbarment for violating the lawyer’s code of conduct. Paxton’s case is pending.
Paxton cheered the decision in a statement.
“After four years of lawfare and political retaliation, the Texas Supreme Court has ended this witch hunt against the leadership of my office,” he wrote. “We have seen this playbook used against President Trump and other effective fighters for the American people and I am pleased that this attempt to stop our work has been defeated.”
After the 2020 election, the state of Texas challenged Biden’s win in several swing states. The case was quickly thrown out. But it prompted a disciplinary commission of the State Bar of Texas to seek sanctions against Webster and Paxton over alleged false statements in their arguments.
The state Supreme Court ruling hinged on who can challenge legal arguments made in court by the attorney general, who acts as the state's lawyer.
“What makes this case different from ordinary litigation, though, is its constitutional dimension,” Justice Evan A. Young wrote for the majority. He said allowing the commission’s lawsuit to continue would “risk the politicization and thus the independence of the judiciary.”
Young added that the U.S. Supreme Court could have disciplined Paxton or Webster for their alleged false statements but did not.
Justices Jeff Boyd and Debra Lehrmann dissented, saying the majority opinion reflected a “disdain and distrust” for the State Bar’s commission and its ability to discipline lawyers. Luckily, they added, the decision applies just to this case.
“Unfortunately, it does not reduce the damage it causes to the separation-of-powers doctrine,” Boyd wrote.
A spokesperson for the State Bar of Texas declined to comment on the decision.
Copyright 2025 KUT 90.5
