The Texas Supreme Court has rejected an effort to discipline Brent Webster, First Assistant Attorney General of Texas, in connection with a controversial lawsuit challenging the 2020 presidential election results. The decision dealt a significant blow to the State Bar of Texas’ attempts to hold Webster and Attorney General Ken Paxton accountable for claims made in the disputed case.
In a 7-2 ruling, the court found the disciplinary commission’s lawsuit against Webster to be an overreach, asserting it violated the separation-of-powers principles outlined in the state constitution. Justice Evan Young, writing for the majority, argued that allowing such lawsuits would compromise the independence of the judiciary and encroach on executive branch authority.
“Were we to hold otherwise, we would risk politicizing the judiciary and undermining its independence,” Young stated in his opinion.
The case stemmed from a 2020 lawsuit filed by Texas with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to overturn election results in four states that had supported Joe Biden. The Supreme Court dismissed the suit, stating Texas lacked standing to bring the case.
The State Bar of Texas later filed disciplinary actions against Webster and Paxton, accusing them of making false claims about election fraud. While the bar declined to comment on the latest ruling, Webster celebrated the outcome, condemning the lawsuits as politically motivated and a misuse of legal resources.
The decision may have broader implications, as Paxton is also fighting a similar lawsuit by the State Bar. Although the court did not directly address Paxton’s case, the logic of its ruling appears likely to influence its outcome.
The move marks another chapter in ongoing efforts to discipline lawyers linked to attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Similar cases involving high-profile attorneys aligned with Donald Trump, such as Rudy Giuliani, have sparked national debates over professional accountability in politically charged legal battles.
With this ruling, the Texas Supreme Court has effectively curtailed one avenue for challenging the conduct of state officials involved in contentious election litigation.
