### Texas Supreme Court Shields Attorney General Ken Paxton from Deposition in Whistleblower Lawsuit

Attorney General Ken Paxton will not be required to sit for a deposition in a longstanding lawsuit filed by four former senior aides who allege they were improperly terminated after reporting him to the FBI, the Texas Supreme Court ruled on Friday. This decision marks a significant victory for Paxton, enabling him to sidestep testifying about serious allegations including corruption, bribery, and abuse of office tied to various legal battles and investigations.

The ruling is a setback for the whistleblowers, who have persistently sought to question Paxton under oath. Tom Nesbitt, representing former deputy attorney general Blake Brickman, criticized the decision, stating, "Ken Paxton is offering to stick his own client, the people of Texas, with an unlimited money judgment...He's doing it to avoid giving testimony about his personal corruption."

Paxton's office hailed the ruling as a "major win" against what it described as "wasteful, politically-motivated litigation." The whistleblowers had intended to question Paxton along with three of his current top deputies. However, the Supreme Court overturned a previous trial court's order that scheduled these depositions, citing that the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) has agreed not to contest the lawsuit, rendering the sworn testimony unnecessary.

The unanimous decision, with Justice Evan Young not participating, noted that the trial court had abused its discretion. The ruling states, "While we agree with the former employees that OAG's concessions do not preclude all discovery, we agree with OAG that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the depositions of these four witnesses..."

The case traces back to September 2020, when the whistleblowers—Blake Brickman, Mark Penley, David Maxwell, and Ryan Vassar—reported Paxton to the FBI. They were concerned about his interactions with Nate Paul, an Austin real estate investor, and believed Paxton's behavior was increasingly inappropriate. Following their report, Paxton terminated their employment.

Paxton, who proposed settling the suit for $3.3 million, needs legislative approval for the funds. When he requested the appropriation from the Texas House in early 2023, lawmakers demanded he publicly justify why taxpayers should cover the settlement. This move led the House's ethics committee to initiate an investigation.

In May 2023, the Texas House impeached Paxton on charges of corruption and bribery, largely based on the whistleblowers' testimony. They accused him of leveraging his office to benefit Paul, including unauthorized legal maneuvers. In return, Paxton allegedly received personal benefits such as renovations on an Austin home and employment for a woman with whom he was reportedly having an extramarital affair. Despite these allegations, the Texas Senate acquitted Paxton of 16 charges and dismissed the remaining four after a two-week trial.

The whistleblower lawsuit continues. Paxton declared in January that he would no longer contest the case's facts, despite his legal team's vigorous defense during the impeachment trial. He emphasized that his settlement should not be seen as an admission of guilt and stated his motivation was to end the "wasteful litigation" without allowing his office to be distracted by what he termed a "self-serving sideshow."