Texas District Attorneys Sue AG Ken Paxton
Five district attorneys in Texas have initiated legal action against State Attorney General Ken Paxton, taking issue with new regulations allowing broad access to their case records. This was detailed in a recent report.
The lawsuits, filed on Friday, claim that these rules represent an unconstitutional overreach. They argue that the measures violate the separation of powers established since April, imposing undue strain on county prosecutors.
District attorneys from Dallas, Bexar, and Harris counties joined forces for one lawsuit, while their counterparts from Travis and El Paso counties brought forward separate claims. All lawsuits suggest that Paxton is obstructing the enforcement of these regulations, which they believe breach both state constitutions and federal laws.
The new guidelines implemented by Paxton’s office target counties with populations exceeding 400,000, which affects only 13 out of Texas’s 254 counties. These rules mandate that district attorneys supply all documents or communications generated or received, even those deemed confidential.
Reports indicate that a wide array of documents—including handwritten notes—could come under scrutiny. Additionally, counties must provide the Attorney General with quarterly updates on twelve specific topics, which include details on police indictments and responses to election law infractions. There are also stipulations regarding internal policies and the use of civil forfeiture funds.
Dallas County District Attorney John Creuzot criticized the new rules as a breach of the separation of powers between administrative and judicial branches. He noted, “The extensive reporting requirements will force district attorney’s offices to redirect resources from their core functions, negatively impacting public safety and the judicial process.” He added that taxpayers in Dallas County are likely to incur significant costs just to meet these new demands.
Creuzot emphasized, “Paxton should collaborate with all district and county attorneys to pursue justice instead of engaging in conflicts with larger urban Democrats.”
In response, Paxton’s office contended that the provisions are intended to “curtail fraudulent district attorneys,” especially those who fail to uphold the law. Noncompliance with these reporting rules could lead to official misconduct charges against a district attorney, potentially resulting in their removal from office.
Paxton previously asserted that district and county lawyers must prioritize community safety by supporting the law and prosecuting serious offenders rather than letting violent criminals go free. He mentioned the significant risks faced by dedicated prosecutors in major counties.
Addressing the lawsuit, Paxton remarked that it’s unsurprising to see district attorneys attempting to relax accountability for violent criminals. He described his reporting rules as straightforward and necessary measures designed to enhance transparency among local officials regarding their responsibilities for public safety.
The lawsuits contend that Paxton’s office lacks the jurisdiction to implement these rules, suggesting that compliance would impose exorbitant and unlawful costs. They argue that the regulations aim to fulfill political motives while placing excessive burdens on the authorities involved and imposing severe repercussions for noncompliance.
